Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [build] Problems with VC14 and MSPDB140.DLL (was: [testing][teeks] MSVC-14 errors about MSPDB140.DLL)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-11 03:11:37

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 11/08/2015 16:55, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> I wonder if we should be building a 64-bit bjam on a 64-bit Windows by
>> default though. It's not a change for 1.59 but still worth considering
>> for future releases.
> That would be another way to solve it, yes. Although then the question
> would be whether it should use the native x86 compiler or the amd64_x86
> cross-compiler. (It is actually possible in some Windows versions to remove
> the ability to run 32-bit code, although I would be quite surprised if
> anyone actually does that, especially in a development environment.)
> Note that currently a 64-bit bjam *won't* use the cross-compiler; I think it
> just operates on a "by default we're running x86" assumption rather than
> trying to follow the native architecture like you suggested above. Comments
> near the code I patched seem to support this. :)

I'm not the author of that code but I suspect the reason for that is
that the amd64_x86 cross-compiler was not shipped until VS2015; there
was only the native x86 compiler. I think it is safe to keep using it
(the x86 compiler) since we know every 64-bit Windows is able to run
32-bit programs. The other way around is not true though - not every
Windows that manifests itself as 32-bit is able to run 64-bit

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