Subject: Re: [boost] cmake target and binary name mangling
From: Roger Leigh (rleigh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-24 20:27:10
On 24/07/17 21:07, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>> Yea, I dont think we should mangle the logical target name at all. The user
>> should be able to write `target_link_libraries(lib boost::foo)` and that
>> should work for either static, shared, or header-only. Supporting multiple
>> variants like shared and static in the same build tree are not supported with
>> cmake, and creating workarounds to try and support them in the same build tree
>> just creates problems. To build shared and static requires two build
>> directories with cmake.
> This is provably untrue.
It's entirely correct if you read what he was saying carefully.
If you use a single target name "lib", this will be a shared library or
a static library depending upon the build configuration (the
BUILD_SHARED_LIBS option), or a header-only library.
Supporting shared and static simultaneously isn't possible *with a
single target name*. You would have to have e.g. "lib" and
"lib-static". And on of the libraries e.g. the static library would
need a mangled name since on Windows both the import library and the
static library have a .lib extension and would clash with each other.
Doing that is possible, but bad practice. The target names are mangled
and not as usable downstream; downstream use has to commit to specific
variants, and it's a lot less flexible. Choosing shared or static at
configure time is the way cmake is designed to work, and it's the better
choice here. (I have gone with the lib+list-static approach in the past
and regretted it later.)
Using normal fixed target names does not preclude mangling the binary
name, which can be set independently as a target property.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk