Subject: Re: [boost] [1.58.0] Release candidates available
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-06 12:07:19
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> Sent: 06 April 2015 16:31
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.58.0] Release candidates available
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > Likewise, why isn't the default a 64-bit build on a 64-bit system?
> Because you may want the software you're developing to run on 32 bit OSes, which is still the most
> common use case on Windows.
> Ideally, you need the default on Windows to be to build both, but the address model is not encoded
> name, so that's not possible at present.
I think we need to discuss changing that.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830