Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 23:40:03
On 6 July 2017 at 00:00, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> 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
I agree. Basically any information that allows tools to differentiate the
different versions so that they an chose the right version for one
target/project's configuration will help.
> 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