Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-06 11:56:32
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> On 07/06/17 02:18, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> 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.
> Why? I think, breaking the world twice (first by adding address-model to the
> names, then by adding architecture) is worse than breaking it once (by
> adding both). There's little difference from the implementation point (I
> think) and I don't remember there being opposition to adding architecture as
This doesn't break the world, does it?
Non-Windows isn't affected.
Windows auto-linking isn't affected.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk