Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: AsbjÃ¸rn (lordcrc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 22:00:58
On 05.07.2017 23:30, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> What problem is this supposed to solve ? How frequently do users need
> both address-models on the same deployment platform (and in the same path) ?
I built executables for distribution on Windows (ie in an installer), where I
provided both 32bit and 64bit versions of the program.
Being able to have both variants of the compiled libraries in the same directory
would have simplified the usage of Boost.
Given that 32bit versions of Windows are still rather common, I imagine this is
still a quite relevant scenario for Windows applications built with Boost.
Just my 2 cents :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk