Re: [boost] Encoding address-model in library names

On 6 July 2017 at 00:32, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost 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