Re: [jamboost] runtime-link

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-04 08:15:24

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I'm in process of implementing new system libraries interface and
> have a couple of question on runtime-link feature.
>
> 1. What should it do? Will it affect the way toolset runtime is linked,
> or default linking for all system libraries.

The intention was just to affect the runtime. Of course, there's a
question of whether I chose the right feature to implement in the
first place.

I don't think it's possible, in general, to do this sort of thing for
"all system libraries", is it? I'm thinking of Windows, where most
libraries are explcitly either static or dynamic. I might be mistaken
about that, though.

> 2. Why it's symmetric in V1? I'm using V2 quite extensively now
> (though on small projects), and I got accustomed to paths like
>
> bin/gcc/debug/example1
>
> I certainly don't want "runtime-link-dynamic" to be added to this
> nice path!
>
> Hope to hear comment on this.

It just seemed wrong to have one be "the default" w.r.t. paths. Static
and dynamic runtime linking seemed, at the time, to have equal weight.

Maybe symmetric features should go away in v2, I don't know.

-- 
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution