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
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 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