Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Merged #149, "Encode architecture and address model in versioned layout names"
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 09:26:10


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Olaf van der Spek via Boost
> Sent: 16 October 2017 18:33
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Olaf van der Spek; Peter Dimov
> Subject: Re: [boost] Merged #149, "Encode architecture and address model in versioned layout names"
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 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
> >> specified?
> >
> >
> > Without.
>
> 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.

There are many novice 'missing library version cries for help' that could be avoided by ensuring that all library versions are built
by default.

So +1 for complete 64 and 32 bit.

The cognoscenti can and will easily use a command that cuts to their minimum.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk