Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 and C++11 ABI compatibility for compiled libraries
From: Lars Hagström (lars_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-22 03:16:02
Did you ever get anywhere with this? This issue has bitten me now, and
I would really like to avoid having to build custom boost versions on
Linux. The ease of installation when using the distro repos is *so*
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrey Semashev
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Petr Machata <pmachata_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I maintain Boost in Fedora, and C++03/11 incompatibility has been on my
>> list of things to look into for some time now.
>> > 2. Compile different versions of Boost libraries
>> I'm not sure how this fares with respect to autotools (by any name). We
>> might need to update some automation to adapt to the changes in soname
>> mangling, and to take any C++11-enabling switches into account. But I
>> didn't look closely. Covering autotools and cmake would take us a long
>> way towards the goal, which seems doable, so maybe #2 is the way to go.
> Great, nice to hear from package maintainers. I got the same impression
> from the discussion, so maybe I'll try to implement a Boost.Build property
> to select C++ flavor.
> However, I don't know much about autotools or cmake internals, so I can't
> tell how it will affect them.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk