Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?

Subject: Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-08 17:44:53

On 8/03/2016 17:18, Rene Rivera wrote:
> 1. Some people don't fancy auto-linking.

I think the only people who don't fancy auto-linking are probably those 
who are building on Linux or multi-platform, and so can't make use of 
it.  Encourage the gcc/clang devs to add support for it. :)

> A) Having file names with "32" *and* "64" on them?

Yes, but rather than just 32 and 64 it should be the actual arch name. 
Libraries built for ARM should be readily distinguishable from those for 
x86.

> D) Having the current names and placing 32 bit address-model variants in
> "stage/lib32" and 64 bit in "stage/lib64"? (Equivalently for install
> location)

This would be good as well (though again using the arch name, not just 
bit level).

In fact the option I would personally prefer would be to do both of 
these at once -- embed the arch into the library name, but also build it 
to an arch-named output directory.

It's not unreasonable to have different library paths for different 
arches, and with auto-linking the difference in library names is not 
important when building -- but having different names is important when 
distributing them local with an application; imagine a case where both a 
32-bit exe and a 64-bit exe are to be installed to the same folder. 
Currently this is not possible because the Boost DLLs will clash.

Even where auto-linking is not used, it's just a matter of specifying 
the library name in the project file / makefile / whatever with a 
placeholder variable for the arch, or conditionally setting the list of 
libraries in the same fashion as the library search path.  It's not that 
hard.