Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-07 17:43:46
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov via Boost
> Sent: 06 July 2017 23:57
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Peter Dimov
> Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
> 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.
The most important missing details is the address-model.
It would seem logical to display the architecture too, but only if this isn't too difficult.
It would be less disruptive to make this break once (especially if, as Niall warns, it drives filename length beyond the Microsoft
People who are using two folders for /x64 and /win32 (as I am, can continue, or change to a single folder if and when they prefer)?
I'd say go for it asap. I'm not sure it will break much. Let's get over it.
And thanks for sorting this out.
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830