Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 and C++11 ABI compatibility for compiled libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-22 03:22:58
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Lars HagstrÃ¶m <lars_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Andrey Semashev
> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.
> 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*
No, not really. I had a few quick attempts that failed because of my
incompetence with Boost.Build and then I got distracted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk