Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost, config, context, log, 1.58] address-model and architecture detection
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-23 16:28:54

On 04/23/2015 10:02 PM, mloskot wrote:
> Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Andrey Semashev <
>> andrey.semashev@
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.

Is this problem unique to Boost? Does any other library encode 32 vs 64 bit variant in library name?

I might not know lot about Windows development, but often library names does not encode anything really, and
there are separate "Program Options" for 32-bit and 64-bit. And on Linux, 32-bit and 64-bit is also
in different places, with library names being the same.

So why is Boost special?

Vladimir Prus
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at