John Maddock wrote:
using intel-win : 8.0-vc6 : : <compatibility>vc6 ; using intel-win : 8.0-vc7 : : <compatibility>vc7 ;
And "8.0-vc6" and "8.0-vc7" will be the version in library name. If that version are equal to what autolinking wants, there should be no problem.
John runs screaming from the building......!
OK, so the same compiler could produce any one of:
"iw" "iw-8.0" "iw-8.0-vc7"
This is *impossible* to handle with auto-linking and even worse than version 1!
Both in V1 and V2, Boost.Build user can specify any name/version for a compiler, and there's no way to prevent that. In addition, I can always make replace "cl.exe" with my own program which will invoke gcc.exe ;-) The point is: build system cannot be expected to determine toolset version automatically. I think it's reasonable to ask a person building boost to provide explicit version numbers when initializing a toolset, no? (While msvc.jam has some logic to autodetect installed version from target path, this cannot be considered 100% reliable).
What I really want to aim for if possible:
For any given compiler, there is one and only one possible name that can be produced, and that name can be derived *entirely* from information available to the C++ preprocessor.
This is only possible if build system will compile a special program with each compiler that will output that preprocessor information, and derive library name from that. This sounds pretty complicated and I don't understand why it's needed. Say, you can detect version of Intel via preprocessor code, and derive autolink names from that, say (forget about vc-mode for a moment): 8.0 -> iw-8.0 8.1 -> iw-8.1 Now, the documentation for building boost say: "When initializing toolset, the version must be specified" User writes: using intel-win : 8.0 ; using intel-win : 8.1 ; and gets the same "iw-8.0" and "iw-8.1". Is requirement to specify version that drastic? - Volodya