Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-24 12:08:22

On 9/24/20 2:30 PM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Alexander Grund via Boost
>> Sent: 24 September 2020 11:59
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Cc: Alexander Grund <alexander.grund_at_[hidden]>
>> Subject: [boost] Configure check guidelines
>>>> On 9/24/20 11:19 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
>>>>> Is there some common practice where to put such configure checks
>>>>> that are required to build the library?
>>>> I'm putting configure/build time checks in the config directory at the top level of the library.
>>>> But I don't think there is an official guideline wrt. this.
>>> I think there should be. And not just in JSON metadata. But it is a
>>> big job for some libraries, duplicating what is in jamfiles.
>> Starting a new thread. TLDR: Where should (source)files go that are required during the "configure" step
>> of a regular build?
>> Not sure what is meant by JSON metadata as I don't see how that is related. Can you elaborate?
> This was Edward Diener's original suggestion that the Boost metadata currently giving name, author etc could include the C++ standard level applicable.
> It is the data for this list
> The discussion is here, for the record and new people joining this thread

Configure checks that require source files typically do not check for
C++ version or features. For that there are already pre-defined rules in

Configure checks typically test the environment for various features,
such as available APIs, libraries, compiler capabilities, CPU features,
that sort of stuff. I don't see how JSON metadata relates to this.

To me, the existing practice (using config top level directory) seems
fine. We might as well document it.

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