On 09-Mar-16 12:35 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gavin Lambert Sent: 08 March 2016 22:45 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?
On 8/03/2016 17:18, Rene Rivera wrote:
1. Some people don't fancy auto-linking.
I think the only people who don't fancy auto-linking are probably those who are building on Linux or multi-platform, and so can't make use of it. Encourage the gcc/clang devs to add support for it. :)
A) Having file names with "32" *and* "64" on them?
Yes, but rather than just 32 and 64 it should be the actual arch name. Libraries built for ARM should be readily distinguishable from those for x86.
+1 for x86, x64, arm ...
The above is actually ambiguous - there's classic 32-bit arm and the 64-bit arm (aarch64). I also thing address size is orthogonal to architecture selection. If I have ARMv8 device, where ARMv8 is actually architecture name, I can still build 32-bit or 64-bit code. The same applies to MIPS. Possibly most people will prefer to run 64-bit OS and userspace on a chip that can do 64-bit, but 32-bit code is still a valid use case. -- Vladimir Prus http://vladimirprus.com