AMDG On 4/30/19 7:08 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Paul Harris wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 22:53, Mateusz Loskot via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 15:54, Paul Harris via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
In the past, b2 would build libraries named like so: libboost_atomic-gcc48-mt-d-1_60.so (note -gcc48-)
I tried compiling Boost 1.66.0 (from boost-git) with gcc 8.3.0,
but > > the
library it generates is named:
libboost_atomic-gcc-mt-d-x64-1_66.so (note the -gcc-) No compiler version number in the tag...
Possibly, it's related to the change in GCC 5+ versioning. This was accommodated in Boost.Build in October 2018 https://github.com/boostorg/build/pull/349 that is, in Boost 1.69 (boostorg/build should use milestones for issues, IMO)
Excellent, thanks for that reference.
I don't think it's possible for a change in 1.69 to affect how 1.66 is built. Something else must be wrong.
The order events was something like this: original: Boost.Build originally uses gcc48, for example. - gcc -dumpversion only returns the major version. This no longer matches the regex in common.jam, causing the version in the library name to be blank. - Boost.Build is adjusted to use -dumpfullversion instead, restoring the original library naming. - Boost.Build is adjusted to include only the major version in the library name (the change Mateusz mentioned). In Christ, Steven Watanabe