Boost logo

Boost :

From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-24 04:00:10

Rene Rivera wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> The topic of what gets built "out of the box" came up again, this
>>> time on IRC. Some background... In the past we have gone the route
>>> of building as much as possible when users do the manual Boost
>>> build+install. That approach has gotten us a rather distressing
>>> reputation of building being a real pain, mostly because it takes a
>>> long
>>> time to build. But also because it generates a dizzying array of
>>> library
>>> files and hence people have a hard time understanding what to link
>>> to.
>>> The old real way to "solve" this is to reduce the number of
>>> variants we
>>> build by default. So the current favorite is to only build:
>>> * multi-threaded, shared runtime, release
> Volodya pointed out that that might be misleading of me since I made a
> usual assumption. What I meant was: multi-threaded, shared, release.
> Meaning shared libraries, and hence shared runtime.

This is a pet peeve of mine - I tend to favor static linkage because I
always know what I get at runtime, no matter if there are multiple DLLs in
the path or not. Also, it is much easier during development and testing as I
don't need to make sure that the .exes will find the shared libraries.

>> Good. Will the names of the resulting libraries be mangled or not?
> No. That would involve changes to the auto-linking code which would
> cause a cascade of failures, and not just in our own testing. We

Mangling ... do you mean tagging? Why should they not be tagged by default?

/ Johan

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at