Subject: Re: [boost] Build breaking changes
From: Robert (r.firl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-04-03 19:05:50
On 4/3/2018 9:37 AM, Steven Watanabe via Boost wrote:
> On 04/03/2018 08:06 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
>> On 2 April 2018 at 20:30, Gavin Lambert via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>> On 30/03/2018 07:48, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>> Difficulty with one particular IDE does not count as a valid reason to
>>>> stick with 32-bit x86 to me.
>>> While the above is true, having the most popular compiler and IDE of the
>>> platform default to 32-bit does argue very strongly to *not stop* building
>>> 32-bit by default _on Windows_.
>> This might not stay this way!
> Of course, but we can always change our default if/when
> Microsoft changes theirs. In the end, building for 32-bit
> or 64-bit is not our call to make. Our default settings
> should be designed to work for most users.
IMHO, 32+64 is going to work well for many, if not all, Visual Studio
tool set developers/users. The architecture within the Boost build
output file name helps everyone.
There is also the Microsoft announcement last Thursday, regarding the
break up of the Windows and Devices team. Terry Myerson will soon
depart. Various Windows development teams are going to either A) Azure
or B) Office (soon to become, "Experiences and Devices"). It is a
challenge predicting what else will occur in the next few months.
>> It also departs from the assumption that
>> *all* VS users are total numwitz, and do not attempt and succeed to set up
>> and select a 64-bit project.
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk