Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: AsbjÃ¸rn (lordcrc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-06 10:27:18
On 06.07.2017 00:07, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> 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 ?
I just mentioned the installer to highlight that I built executables for other
platform variants than the one I do the building on.
Building for others is a fairly common use-case in the open-source world on
Windows, in which case you frequently need both 32bit and 64bit versions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk