* The outcome is that build systems will have to cope with that divergence.

It is correct that there lot of these things are platform dependent, yes, and build systems have already been dealing with them.
Whatever we do, I think we need to avoid the “N+1” standards problem.

-- Gaby

From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Cc: sg15_at_[hidden]; Chuanqi Xu <chuanqi.xcq_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [SG15] What is the outcome of the 12-12 meeting for the initial question: the location of std module units?

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023, 11:29 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]<mailto:gdr_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
CL.exe for instance has no fogging clue, but the packager knows. In the prior experimental std.* modules, CL.exe has to be told where those BMIs are.
The higher level point is: insisting that only the compiler knows is just wrong.

In that case it seems that we don't have enough foundations to build a standardized solution to this problem.

The outcome is that build systems will have to cope with that divergence.

That being said, in the case of Linux (and I presume MacOS as well), the compiler is the one best positioned to answer that question (since it is already deeply integrated with the standard libraries it supports).

Which means on those platforms the build systems will be able to have a single converging solution.

Daniel