You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I would like to propose providing the name of a detected component in a universal macro.
BOOST_LANG_NAME shall be defined as detected language name
BOOST_ARCH_NAME shall be defined as detected architecture name
and so on for BOOST_COMP_NAME, BOOST_LIB_C_NAME, BOOST_LIB_STD_NAME, BOOST_LIB_OS_NAME, maybe for BOOST_PLAT_NAME.
The primary use case of this proposal is conveniently printing some build information to the user, allowing better bug reports.
I understand that some of those definitions are ambiguous, for example BOOST_ARCH_NAME could be defined to either BOOST_ARCH_X86_NAME or BOOST_ARCH_X86_64_NAME on x86-64.
In these cases, I would propose using either the 'leaf' names which are the most specific or the first ones detected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I would like to propose providing the name of a detected component in a universal macro.
BOOST_LANG_NAME
shall be defined as detected language nameBOOST_ARCH_NAME
shall be defined as detected architecture nameand so on for
BOOST_COMP_NAME
,BOOST_LIB_C_NAME
,BOOST_LIB_STD_NAME
,BOOST_LIB_OS_NAME
, maybe forBOOST_PLAT_NAME
.The primary use case of this proposal is conveniently printing some build information to the user, allowing better bug reports.
I understand that some of those definitions are ambiguous, for example
BOOST_ARCH_NAME
could be defined to eitherBOOST_ARCH_X86_NAME
orBOOST_ARCH_X86_64_NAME
on x86-64.In these cases, I would propose using either the 'leaf' names which are the most specific or the first ones detected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: