Subject: Re: [boost] Merged #149, "Encode architecture and address model in versioned layout names"
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-16 17:33:15
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost
> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> > Now that building Boost with address-model=32,64 works, I think that we
>> > > ought to build both for --build-type=complete on Windows. I'm less sure >
>> > about --build-type=minimal, but given that (a) what minimal builds is >
>> > determined by the configuration Visual Studio projects use by default >
>> > (which is 32 bit) and (b) that we're getting more and more calls for 64 >
>> > being built by default, it looks like --build-type=minimal ought to > build
>> > both 32 and 64 as well.
>> > that we're getting more and more calls for 64 being built by default,
>> By default, does that mean with or without --build-type=complete
So would the default build-type be changed to complete or would a new
build-type be introduced for this?
Having complete be the default would be most convenient, with minimal
allowing you to optimize for space.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk