On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote: > >> >> Doug, you need to explain this to us Windows developers who don't have a >> clue as to how to manage multiple build variants of libraries without name >> mangling. >> >> > I don't think it is absolutely necessary to do so. Again, CMake can > mangle, or not. > > FWIW, I'm working on a commercial project now where developers are unhappy >> with Boost because we don't include 32-bit/64-bit builds in the name >> mangling. >> >> These same folks decide not to use name mangling in their own libraries, >> and as a result are running into constant hassles. >> >> Note that this isn't an issue of different compilers, but rather debug | >> release, and 32-bit | 64-bit builds with the same compiler. >> > > Here's more evidence that any mangling should be off by default but > configurable. The current mangling scheme isn't detailed enough for some > (and I can think of a number of unixy situations where having release/debug > 32/64 in the name might make sense.... but not all), too detailed for > others, and inflicts a > lot of unnecessary complexity on basically everybody else. Apparently no > one scheme will do. Makes sense. > > > Also note that these guys aren't in the 'getting started' phase, they know > how they like their mangling. It isn't asking much of them to go to the > 'mangling' section of the docs and configure it as they want it. Actually, they have no idea what mangling is. They say they don't want it when I suggest it. They don't understand that the "It just works" approach they like relies on name mangling. They just want to download a Windows VC++ installer, click on check boxes with choices they understand, and click the "Install" button. If you asked them if the VC++ libraries should use mangled names, at least some of them would say "no"! The choices they understand would include "static linking", "dynamic (DLL) linking", "release", "debug", "32-bit", "64-bit", "single-threaded", "multi-threaded". When they want to use a library, they expect to give their IDE's Property Manager a single "Additional Libraries Directories" path, and then linking to the correct variant "just works". The idea of having to specify a different path for each build variant wouldn't fly. --Beman
_______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
