Subject: Re: [boost] Using both boost 64 and 32 bit on Windows with CMake
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-18 05:36:53
On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Mathias Gaunard <
> mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[snipped to the essence]
>> Of course you cannot put both 32 or 64 bit in there without making subfolders.
> This is the problem exactly that I'm pointing. I can obviously set the library dir using BOOST_LIBRARYDIR
> but I then have to do it each time I need to work on CMake files of the projects and need to delete cache and configure from scratch.
>> TBB puts its libs in intel64 or ia32 sub directories which isn't all that common of a naming scheme in my experience but is certainly usable.
> CMake's FindTBB knows that convention which helps it find the right binaries depending on the configuration/architecture choosen which is what I point is lacking with Boost, because of the lack of convention.
> I'm not saying boost should use one convention in particular, just that it should provide a convention so that I or someone can patch the FindBoost module.
I see no reason against choosing a subdirectory structure in which to place 32 and 64 bit libraries. However, if Program Files is the install location, Windows already distinguishes between them: Program Files and Program Files (x86). IOW, if that's the install location, the subdirectories aren't needed (though one can still be used in each location).
I vote for simple, straightforward names, like 32 and 64, for the subdirectories, BTW.
Having said that much, naming the directories with much of the platform and architecture information, while simplifying the library names, would be nicer IME.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk