Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] cmake target and binary name mangling
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-24 14:58:28

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

So what do you propose? Not supporting Windows?

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

I agree


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