Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost, config, context, log, 1.58] address-model and architecture detection
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-24 17:09:39

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir_at_[hidden]>

> On 04/24/2015 11:58 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
>> So why is Boost special?
>>> >
>>> >
>> Boost don't have a way to identify if the binaries are 64 or 32bits.
>> That's really the core root of the problem
>> and would easily be fixed with any convention.
>> Location don't help if the build system
>> of the library don't enforce that location convention, so that tool knows
>> where is what.
>> As soon as it is provided, it will be easy to fix the CMake module
>> or any tool that try to identify from a boost install.
>> I also gave other details on the issue in the trac ticket
> Right, Boost does not have a way to identify whether binaries are 32-bit
> or 64-bit,
> but most other C++ libraries don't have either, so it should present the
> same
> problems for users, and build tools.

To clarify:
I and several others pointed to the fact that most other libraries actually
do provide a way to identify
these binaries (at least on windows), often by using a relative output path
relative to the root directory of the library,
therefore most libraries do provide both 32 and 64 bit versions, in
particular open-source ones which
when you build will put the binaries in the different paths,
while Boost does not do anything like that at the moment.

> The only difference for Boost is that it
> tries to solve this problem for some other variations, so you can
> reasonably
> claim that it's easier for Boost to handle bitness that it would be for
> random
> other project?
I didn't understand this question but I will revisit it once I get some

> --
> Vladimir Prus
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

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