Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 22:07:27
On 05.07.2017 18:00, AsbjÃ¸rn via Boost wrote:
> 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.
Why not build separate 32-bit and 64-bit installers, as lots of other
applications do ?
> 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.
While 32-bit systems may still exist, I find it extremely rare that
someone with a 64-bit system wants to run 32-bit applications. So
dealing with the (slight) inconvenience to have separate paths in these
(rare) cases seems more appropriate than having everyone pay the price
for the added complexity.
> Just my 2 cents :)
> - AsbjÃ¸rn
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk