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
>>> time to build. But also because it generates a dizzying array of
>>> files and hence people have a hard time understanding what to link
>>> 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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk