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

Subject: Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-10 04:19:09

On 09-Mar-16 12:35 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gavin Lambert
>> Sent: 08 March 2016 22:45
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?
>>
>> 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.
>
> +1 for x86, x64, arm ...

The above is actually ambiguous - there's classic 32-bit arm and the 64-bit arm (aarch64).

I also thing address size is orthogonal to architecture selection. If I have ARMv8 device,
where ARMv8 is actually architecture name, I can still build 32-bit or 64-bit code. The
same applies to MIPS. Possibly most people will prefer to run 64-bit OS and userspace on
a chip that can do 64-bit, but 32-bit code is still a valid use case.

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimirprus.com