Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Why does library naming not include architecture details
From: Ian Emmons (iemmons_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-11 10:06:10
I also would like to see the address model and architecture added to the library names. This would greatly simplify my process to build Boost libraries (since I could use a single stage directory) and my site-config.jam file (since it would not need a ton of conditionals).
A related gripe: The current system of splitting the address model and architecture as two independent features is awkward, because these are not orthogonal attributes of a binary image. When you look at Windows and Linux, it is tempting to think of them as orthogonal, but when you include IA64, Macintosh, and the host of smart phone architectures and operating systems, it becomes clear that many architectures have only one address model, and Macintosh (at least) incorporates several architectures and address models at once. A better way for Boost.Build to represent the architecture and address model combinations would be to imitate the architecture identifiers used by GCC.
On Aug 10, 2010, at 11:10 AM, William Newbery wrote:
> When compiling (with msvc 10) x86-64 and x86 builds there is no difference in the resulting library names, and I assume the same goes for IA-64, Windows CE targets (although I have tested neither) and similar situations with other tool sets. Why are these differences not included in the output library file names and used by the auto linking so that everything for the toolset can be put in a single place on the library path and not have conditional stuff for different configurations?
> eg something like:
> rather than just:
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