Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 23:18:40
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Fair enough. But it's a change, and as such, it comes at a price. (And we
> haven't even talked about Andrey's comment:
> > 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.
In Boost.Build, the architecture (arm mips1 power sparc x86 combined) is a
separate property from the address model (32 64).
In principle, we could also encode the architecture.
My impression though, based on observing earlier discussions, is that tying
the address model issue to the architecture issue is a very effective way to
stall progress and ultimately do nothing.