Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] cmake target and binary name mangling
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-24 12:28:49

On 24/07/2017 13:20, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> Different audiences.
>> Note I have little problem with the boost release zip of precompiled
>> binaries not having mangled names, though I still think it
> How'd you handle Debug vs Release mode on Windows?

Well, Windows is an outlier in that you can't safely mix debug and
release CRTs.

As I mentioned, me personally I'd ship the name mangled versions always.
I've found it leads to less surprise.


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at