From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-05 11:06:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> I think there are a few vagaries which, if cleared up, would help us
> understand what we're talking about:
> 1. What is the definition of "system library"?
"system-library" is any library which is not built using Boost.Build ---
i.e. there's no corresponding main target. This, in particular, includes
C runtime (from my linuxish point of view).
> 2. Is this feature meant to express a preference or a hard
Preference. You must be able to set it globally, and not to fight
with libraries that are available in only one variant.
>>Maybe we need a completely different (ms specific) flag for this?
>>After all, it's a problem that only occurs on windows platforms.
> The issue of link-compatibility between objects compiled for different
> runtimes only occurs on Windows, but the issue of whether to link to
> the static or dynamic runtime certainly comes up on other platforms.
> I understand that eventually we need to deal with platform-specific
> needs, so I am certainly willing to consider this. However, I only
> want to go this direction as a last resort. An important design goal
> of Boost.Build is to be able to write "high-level" build
> specifications which mostly insulate the user from
> platform-/compiler-specific issues. If we can capture the "usual
> intention" of the user in asking for a static or dynamic runtime such
> that it chooses the right compiler option on Windows and does
> something else everywhere else, that's better.
Completely agree. In other mail, I'm asking some question about
static runtime usage on Windows that hopefully can help to
understand those "usual intentions".
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk