From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-09 08:37:43
Roland Schwarz wrote:
> Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
>> I support this aggresive deadline-based approach and very much
>> appreciate your efforts to get Boost 1.34 out of the door, we've just
>> been procrastinating way too long. Hopefully, the planned post-1.34
>> switch to SVN and Beman's always-ready approach to code base
>> management will avoid these problems in the future.
> In principle I agree. Where I do not agree is the fact that we
> currently do not have a single gcc (mingw/cygwin) regression result.
> I think it would be a fault if boost is omitting such a mainstream
Nod. However, there are problems building dll's with mingw that are causing
us apparent regressions (the static library builds all work - which is what
we tested at the last release). See http://tinyurl.com/26pz5g for a typical
example. The cause is a mingw linker problem rather than anything we can
fix in Boost.
I had a go at changing the regex/build Jamfile to static link when building
with mingw, but apparently the toolset names don't match up: is there any
way we can apply a build option to all gcc-mingw* toolsets?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk