RE: RE: [date_time] library binaries for VC7.1? && Comm on lib placement

From: Dan Muller (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-18 15:15:33

In article <41B553DE6D81D5119AD90050DA7ACF702E62F0_at_PDCSERVER>, 
administrator_at_[hidden] says...
> Dan,
> 
> At least, so far, it only allows for debug/non-debug tagging.  Right now,
> I'm starting to get involved over on the Boost.Build
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/> mailing list.  We'll see exactly
> how things pan out, although I doubt there will be any major changes for a
> little while.

Thanks, I've start following that mailing list again. I know these are 
difficult problems to solve in a portable way; it will be interesting to 
see what people propose.

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Muller [mailto:yg-boost-users_at_[hidden]]
> > 
> > In article <41B553DE6D81D5119AD90050DA7ACF702E62E6_at_PDCSERVER>, 
> > administrator_at_[hidden] says...
> > > Dan,
> > > 
> > > The date_time.lib library is a static lib.  The built 
> > date_time.dll actually
> > > has no exports in it, so for VC purposes is useless.  I 
> > would say don't
> > > worry about it, and just use the static lib.
> > 
> > Thanks, Dale, this is exactly what I needed to know. I was 
> > starting to 
> > worry that I didn't understand DUMPBIN's output, which would be 
> > worrisome since I've been using it for years. :-)
> > 
> > > On a side note, has anyone been working on placing built 
> > items into a common
> > > directory, say <boost_top_dir>/lib?
> > > 
> > > If not, I have a patch that should help alot.
> > 
> > Sounds like an excellent idea. I'm assuming that on Windows, 
> > the boost 
> > build would then follow common conventions so that libraries 
> > built with 
> > different characteristics (debug vs. non-debug, multi- vs. single-
> > threaded, etc) had different names. (I haven't been following boost 
> > build developments lately -- is this a topic of ongoing changes?)
> > 

-- 
Dan Muller
"So that's what an invisible barrier looks like!" (Time Bandits)