On 16/04/13 22:06, Michael Marcin wrote:
Sort of, most libraries choose one, at least as a default. Which can help tools like CMake make educated guesses that help users.
Most libraries do not encode half as much data as what Boost encodes in its versioned naming scheme. Most libraries certainly do not care about 32 or 64 bits, it's two configuratons you set up and compile separately, like building for two different architectures.
For example there is no conventional place to install boost on windows
There is, C:\Boost. That's the default installation directory of the Boost windows installers. Of course you cannot put both 32 or 64 bit in there without making subfolders.
TBB puts its libs in intel64 or ia32 sub directories which isn't all that common of a naming scheme in my experience but is certainly usable.
It's a naming scheme that is used by all Intel libraries (and it's not even that consistent, some versions of TBB also have intel64/gc4.4 for example). It's not used by all libraries everywhere. I know of many pieces of software which use an approach like that but with different directory names. Some will use a full triplet like x86_64-linux-gnu some will use weird names like glnxa64 etc.