Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Enabling spectre mitigation in boost libraries
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-06 18:48:34

On 4/6/19 11:14 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, 1:11 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> On 4/6/19 9:46 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
>>> One thing we could look at for future releases would be to provide
>>> differently-named binaries for /Qspectre. Anyone else have thoughts on
>>> that?
>> Hmmm - I question I'm too lazy to investigate so I'll just ask you.
>> Does boost build not provide the option of specifying that the
>> invocation specify the name of the binaries or perhaps some root? Would
>> this not get boost off the hook for addressing special requirements like
>> this?
> Yes, both of those features are available.

OK so the complete answer to the poster's question would be:

a) build you're own instance of boost libraries - at least the ones that
you use.

b) with options that you need and the name/root you want do use.

c) and test those builds with the tests provide for each library

d) and report any problems.

Is the information easily available in the Boost Build documentation to
do this? I think it should be. In fact I think every time a question
like this comes it, the boost library and tool maintainers should add a
section to the the boost build documentation: Example ... or Case Study
... . Since the same questions tend to be posted again and again,
eventually the need to make such additions to the manual will will taper
off. At that point all these kinds of questions can be answered with a
simple "see example ... in the documentation (you lazy moron). So,
though my suggestion seems like it would be creating more work, it's
actually an investment of effort designed to diminish total amount of
work required to support the tool.

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at