Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-06 22:56:46
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 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).
Fair point, although I think that "breaking the world" is a slight
> There's little difference from the implementation point (I think)...
Not quite true because <address-model> is already supported by the relevant
Boost.Build rule, which is why the patch is so trivial, while the
architecture isn't. But I'll see what I can do.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk