From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-03 09:59:58
MANSION, James, FM wrote:
>>Hmm.. I'm a bit concerned over this. AFAICT, the compiler fails a
>>large number of tests (pretty much every library fails), and now it
>> turns out the free version can't create DLL. Is it worth to invest
>> time in this compiler?
> Yes, but it probably fails quicker than anything else that's supported.
> It used to work OK, and I posted a hint to Walter that he should take
> Care of it again - I think if someone can create some test cases
> and post them on the dm for a,
What is "a"?
> then Walter will Do The Right Thing.
Given that only 5 libraries work fine, this will be quite a bit of work.
Unless some specific person volunteers to do this, I don't see how the
situation will improve.
>> I've applied this patch. It still feels very strange to me that in
>> order to create a DLL one needs a .def file :-(
> Used to need a .def file for any Windows build. <shrug>
Oh, and now only for DLL? Good to know things are improving.
> Don't you
> need something similar if you really want to control which symbols
> are exported on UNIX too?
In theory, you might need something like that. In practice, very few
people/projects bother/need this.
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