Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 23:59:01
On 6 July 2017 at 00:32, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> 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.
> Have you encountered this problem on Windows when trying to build the
> same application using both 32-bit and 64-bit boost variations?
I reported this problem several times through the years here because
it prevent (meta-)build systems like CMake don't have a reliable way
to be sure which are the right binaries, and I have to do the same as you
each time I cmake, with a sometime different BOOST_LIBARYDIR for
differrent applications or the same.
I couldn't make a patch because I fail to get how b2 work (although I didn't
get in great depths in it) and think it need at least some kind of agreement
on some authority around here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk