From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-21 08:23:07
Vladimir Prus <ghost <at> cs.msu.su> writes:
> I'm not sure what specific end-user functionality you mean? The possibility
> to have both compiler-version-less and compiler-version-full names? Why is
> that important for you? Or something else?
Exactly. I need the compiler-version-full names because when I work on Borland
Boost support it's very handy to have libraries built for different compiler
releases available at the same time. On the other hand my production code uses
the compiler-version-less names.
If I had to choose I'd rather have the version-full names, but that would
require fixing the auto-link code. Ideally I'd like to be able to do the
bjam --v2 toolset=borland
should pick up the compiler from path and set version-less names. Whether this
functionality should always be available when a borland compiler is configured
or should require an explicit version-less configuration is something I don't
have an opinion about.
bjam --v2 toolset=borland-5.8.2
should use the specific compiler as configured in user-config.jam and set
P.S. I noticed that the issue about version-full and version-less names has
been raised elsewhere. I'd say that consistency, with V1 first and then across
toolsets, is what matters most.
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