Subject: Re: [boost] [boost, config, context, log, 1.58] address-model and architecture detection
From: mloskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-23 15:02:09
Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte wrote
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Andrey Semashev <
>> So my vote is for building 64-bit binaries on a 64-bit system by
>> default. This is also consistent with other systems.
> Even with that, having no way for tools (like CMake) to identify one
> version from the other is problematic when you actually need to support
> Both building the OS native binaries and having a convention to identify
> both 32 and 64bit versions would help.
I second that too.
As a user of CMake+Boost tandem, I find the issue a PITA indeed.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-config-context-log-1-58-address-model-and-architecture-detection-tp4674125p4674736.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk