Subject: Re: [boost] Merged #149, "Encode architecture and address model in versioned layout names"
From: Deniz Bahadir (dbahadir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 09:50:36
Am 17.10.2017 um 11:26 schrieb Paul A. Bristow via Boost:
>> -----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
>> 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.
Then, additionally, the issue regarding incomplete compiler-tag
(reported here ) should probably be fixed, too.
> So +1 for complete 64 and 32 bit.
> The cognoscenti can and will easily use a command that cuts to their minimum.