Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 22:44:46
On 05.07.2017 18:32, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Because they could use distinct installation prefixes to avoid conflicts.
> As a developer working primarily on Windows who regularly builds both
> 32-bit and 64-bit address models, its a hassle to have different
> installation prefixes. There's no "standard" place for link libraries
> on Windows so I have to define BOOST_ROOT in my environment. There's
> no provision for having two different BOOST_LIBRARYDIR one for 32-bit
> and one for 64-bit. I end up having to manually edit my project file
> every time.
That's unfortunate indeed.
> Have you encountered this problem on Windows when trying to build the
> same application using both 32-bit and 64-bit boost variations?
I'm very rarely building on Windows, and almost never using Visual
Studio. My main development platform is Linux, and I regularly
cross-compile or build (remotely, in a VM, etc.) on a range of other
platforms (OSX, ARM, etc.).
This may explain the cultural difference... :-)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...