Subject: Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 23:59:01
On 6 July 2017 at 00:32, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Because they could use distinct installation prefixes to avoid conflicts.
>
> As a developer working primarily on Windows who regularly builds both
> 32-bit and 64-bit address models, its a hassle to have different
> installation prefixes. There's no "standard" place for link libraries
> on Windows so I have to define BOOST_ROOT in my environment. There's
> no provision for having two different BOOST_LIBRARYDIR one for 32-bit
> and one for 64-bit. I end up having to manually edit my project file
> every time.
>
> Have you encountered this problem on Windows when trying to build the
> same application using both 32-bit and 64-bit boost variations?
>
>
I reported this problem several times through the years here because
it prevent (meta-)build systems like CMake don't have a reliable way
to be sure which are the right binaries, and I have to do the same as you
each time I cmake, with a sometime different BOOST_LIBARYDIR for
differrent applications or the same.
I couldn't make a patch because I fail to get how b2 work (although I didn't
get in great depths in it) and think it need at least some kind of agreement
on some authority around here.
Joël Lamotte