Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-27 10:41:14

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Doug, you need to explain this to us Windows developers who don't have a
> clue as to how to manage multiple build variants of libraries without
> name mangling.

I don't think it is absolutely necessary to do so. Again, CMake can
mangle, or not.

> FWIW, I'm working on a commercial project now where developers are
> unhappy with Boost because we don't include 32-bit/64-bit builds in the
> name mangling.
> These same folks decide not to use name mangling in their own libraries,
> and as a result are running into constant hassles.
> Note that this isn't an issue of different compilers, but rather debug |
> release, and 32-bit | 64-bit builds with the same compiler.

Here's more evidence that any mangling should be off by default but
configurable. The current mangling scheme isn't detailed enough for
some (and I can think of a number of unixy situations where having
release/debug 32/64 in the name might make sense.... but not all), too
detailed for others, and inflicts a
lot of unnecessary complexity on basically everybody else. Apparently
no one scheme will do.

Also note that these guys aren't in the 'getting started' phase, they
know how they like their mangling. It isn't asking much of them to go
to the 'mangling' section of the docs and configure it as they want it.


Boost-cmake list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at