Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 22:00:51
On 07/06/17 00:16, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> I have prepared the pull requests necessary to encode the address-model
> (32 or 64) in the library names, which allows placing the 32/64
> libraries into the same stage/install directory, and building with
> address-model=32,64 in one go.
> These are
> This being a Serious Change, the prudent thing to do is to wait out
> 1.65, then proceed.
> On the other hand, experience shows that this kind of change is only
> tested when a release goes out anyway; delaying it for four more months
> would not help much.
> Therefore, I'm calling for opinions; would people want this to go into
> 1.65? Into 1.66? Not at all?
Does it only include the address model without the architecture? If yes,
it doesn't really solve the problem since you'll still have the same
issue when you compile 32-bit x86 and ARM binaries, for example. If we
want to put binaries to the same directory, I think the name should
include the architecture.
In any case, I suspect there'll be a fair amount of discussion, and
there should be a fair amount of testing before it is merged to master.
I think 1.65 is already closed for beta, so it's probably better to
postpone it to 1.66.