[Win32] Do I need both versioned and unversioned boost libs?
I noticed that the build process generates duplicate .lib files - versioned and unversioned. Is there a redundancy and do I need both in order auto-linking to work properly? If so, which type is redundant? Thanks in advance!
Iliyan Georgiev wrote:
I noticed that the build process generates duplicate .lib files - versioned and unversioned. Is there a redundancy and do I need both in order auto-linking to work properly? If so, which type is redundant?
They are indeed "redundant". They are that way for people who prefer to use shorter names in their build systems. Auto-linking uses the full names, so you could get rid of the duplicate shorter named libs. NOTE: It's only on Windows where they take up more disk space. On Unix there linked to each other. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Hi On 5/24/07, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
Iliyan Georgiev wrote:
I noticed that the build process generates duplicate .lib files - versioned and unversioned. Is there a redundancy and do I need both in order auto-linking to work properly? If so, which type is redundant?
They are indeed "redundant". They are that way for people who prefer to
It depends on how you have built BOOST. If you build using "bjam --layout=system", the libs with *no* version (and compiler) name is used by auto_link. On BOOST 1.34, I think it is a bit broken as the auto_link tries to include some libs which have "-mt" in the lib names (multi-threaded libraries). The auto_link might need some fix to decide which one to pick. I have not explore deep enough yet. -dky -- Dhruva Krishnamurthy Contents reflect my personal views only!
participants (1)
-
dhruva -
Iliyan Georgiev -
Rene Rivera