Re: naming convention of targets for Windows platform - why not use VC style?
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:39:48 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Piotr Dobrogost wrote:
> Splitting targets to orthogonal concepts would be a good start - instead of
> having "release-half-a-dozen-of-combinations" and at the same time
> "debug-half-a-dozen-of-THE-SAME-combinations" we should have
> CFG1=debug|release CFG2=the-rest which results in reduction of explicit
> targets by the factor of 2. The same goes for dynamic/static.
I'm indeed open for that. I don't think we have a single developer who's
actually using that makefile so to my knowledge there's nobody who will
provide any strong opinions on those details.
If you can present a way you think is better and clearer then please do!
> I don't have problems with targets' names like ssl, ssl-dll, zlib-dll and so
> on. Talking about targets I had in mind output files rather than targets'
> names. So for any target using static RTL it's common in VC to have MT
> suffix in names of output files (libcurlMT.lib, libcurlMT.dll) and so on.
Well "zlib-ssl-dll" as an example implies using zlib and ssl to create a dll.
libcurlMT.dll only mentions the memory model. Wouldn't it then be called
And here too I'm fine with output files as target names, as long as we have
them documented in at least a basic manner.
-- / daniel.haxx.seReceived on 2009-02-18