Subject: Re: [boost] cmake target and binary name mangling
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-24 12:12:37
>> So everything you just said is all irrelevant. Meanwhile, there
>> are *enormous* end user gains to mangling the binary name.
> Then why does no linux distro do this? Even when they support
> compiling for multiple platforms. I think the standard way is to use
> separate directories instead of using encoded name, which is very
> much relevant and current practice.
Note I have little problem with the boost release zip of precompiled
binaries not having mangled names, though I still think it
better-safe-than-sorry. For the same reason, a linux package repo need
not go mad mangling library names. They control the build config used
end-to-end, and end users are rarely going to combine binaries in
accidentally stupid ways.
But for developers needing to test just compiled binaries in various
combinations and configurations, name mangling is an unalloyed win. As I
mentioned, I only just shot myself in the foot with this last week
because I wasn't mangling the true compiler compiling the binaries into
the library names on Windows.
So I'd be entirely happy if staging directory had mangled names, and
install directory had unmangled names. If that was felt important.
Personally speaking, I think there is more than enough work in a cmake
conversion without deliberately making more work for yourself unnecessarily.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk