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
So +1 for complete 64 and 32 bit.
The cognoscenti can and will easily use a command that cuts to their minimum.
--- 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