From: Ulrich Eckhardt (uli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-08 00:09:18
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 20:36, Valentin Samko wrote:
> So, there're three variants (unless we mix debug and release variants
> of native runtime in the same process):
> 1. Release variant of our code linked against release variant of
> STLport 2. Debug variant of our code linked against debug variant of
> STLport. 3. Debug variant of our code linked against debug variant of
> STLport, all compiled with __STL_DEBUG.
> I understand that Boost only supports 1 and 3, and I would like
> option 2 to be added. Currently in mode 2 we get
> # pragma message("warning: STLPort debug versions are built with
> # error "Build options aren't compatible with
> pre-built libraries"
AOL. We use a slightly patched 1.32 here (mostly so that it works with
embedded Visual C++ cross compilers) and also fixed above issue, working with
is without problems now. The final libnames need to be fixed, AFAIR, the
rules for the naming are laid out in that file. To me it isn't even worth a
>>> 2. It is very usefull that compiled boost libraries embed version
>>> number and different compile time options in their names.
>>> Unfortunately, STLport version is not embedded in their names (only
A totally different thing is the STLport version which in fact is giving me
big headaches as STLport 5 dropped tags like the compiler name from their DLL
name. So, no way to install STLport for different compilers alongside each
other anymore. I tried to lobby for this feature but the voices against were
stronger. Anyway, it needs to be taken into consideration.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk