Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?

-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rene Rivera Sent: 08 March 2016 04:19 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] 32/64 library name conflict under Windows?

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:

...

I remember that we discussed this problem before:

C:\Projects\boost-git\boost>b2 --with-system toolset=msvc-10.0 address-model=32,64

[...]

error: Name clash for 'libboost_system-vc100-mt-gd-1_61.lib' error: error: Tried to build the target twice, with property sets having error: these incompatible properties: error: error: - <address-model>32 error: - <address-model>64 error: error: Please make sure to have consistent requirements for these error: properties everywhere in your project, especially for install error: targets.

but don't remember what we concluded. Will we support building both 32 and 64 bit libraries under Windows? At present if I want to have an IDE project that has both Win32 and x64 configurations I need to build the 32 bit libraries, move them out of stage/lib somewhere, then build the 64 bit libraries, then move them out of stage/lib to somewhere else, and set my library directories in the IDE accordingly.

It would be much more convenient if 32/64 were encoded into the name, so that I can leave my library path to point at stage/lib and rely on autolink to choose the right .lib file automatically, like it works today for the other options (debug/release, static/dynamic runtime).

1. Some people don't fancy auto-linking.

Excellent (when it works - almost always).

2. People responding with "+N".. Which of the following would you prefer? And give rationale for your preference, and optionally give rationales for not preferring others:

A) Having file names with "32" *and* "64" on them?

Explicit is good. Follows current scheme of having different unique names for different variants. Once started unique names, we should continue.

B) Having current names indicate 32 and adding "64" to file names otherwise?

Acceptable.

C) Having current names indicate the "default" system address-model and add "32" or "64" to indicate the non-default?

KISS

D) Having the current names and placing 32 bit address-model variants in "stage/lib32" and 64 bit in "stage/lib64"? (Equivalently for install location)

Having two files with same name in different folders is less explicit than two different filenames.

E) Having the current names and placing 32 bit address-model variants in "stage/lib" and 64 bit in "stage/lib64"? (Equivalently for install location)

Make be less trouble short term, but less clear when 64 becomes the default? (and what about 128-bit ;-)

F) Having the current names and placing the "default" system address-model variants in "stage/lib" and the non-default in "stage/lib32" or "stage/lib64"? (Equivalently for install location)

KISS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle is *my* default position). So I favour option A. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830