Re: [jamboost] Re: [BBv2] A new MS Platform SDK/StdLib selection method

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-14 16:52:22

Reece Dunn wrote:
> 
> In general, on Windows, an "SDK" has the 
> following layout:
> 
> <sdk-root>
> include -- header files
> amd64 -- AMD64 headers
> src -- source code
> lib -- libraries
> i386 -- IA32 libraries
> amd64 -- AMD64 libraries
> bin -- binaries (executables and shared libraries)
> 
> I am not sure how strictly this structure holds for other "SDK"s. I am 
> thinking of things like python. Also, do "SDK"s follow a different 
> convention on *nix?

The convention is weak. It's often ignored. There are a lot of 
exceptions. Boost itself, for example.

> You could assume the above layout and have controls for locating the 
> include, lib and bin directories for "SDK"'s that don't follow that 
> pattern. So:
> 
> using wtl : 7.0 : c:/sdks/wtl70 ;
> 
> would add c:/sdks/wtl70/bin to the path (not a problem if the directory 
> does not exist), c:/sdks/wtl70/include to the include path either via 
> environment variables (for msvc) or <include>/<system-include> for other 
> compilers...
> 
> Hmm... are there <system-include> and <system-library> features? 

Yes. There is at least <sysinclude>. But it isn't widely supported by 
toolsets.

Also, should Boost support this version/path syntax to configure which 
of the installed Boost versions is to be used?

> If 
> there were, we could then add them to the environment for msvc and do 
> the right thing with other compilers (doesn't CodeWarrior have a system 
> include option?) 

MSVC itself doesn't have a separate system include option. Only VS IDE 
has. I wonder if there are any compilers with such separate option.

Andrey