"Stefan Slapeta" <stefan@slapeta.com> wrote in message news:200402182203.XAA22397@stud3.tuwien.ac.at...
// -----Original Message----- // From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org // [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey // // I'm not sure I'm following all this. Given that you are // understand what the // consequences of building and using a static library in this // context, and you // decide that they are not a problem for you, what prevents // you from building // your own statically linked library and using it in your own
projects?
// Wouldn't that solve your whole issue // Robert Ramey //
I see two problems:
1. IMHO, it's not possible to create a static thread library without modifying the boost code (first, disabling the auto_link feature, second, eliminate the declspec macros in thread/detail/config.hpp).
So it isn't possible to do this by defining the appropriate macros (on the command line, in the IDE settings, by using the appropriate #defines before you include the Boost.Thread headers, etc.)? I haven't tried this or looked into it at all, I'm just asking what you've tried already.
2. The clear absence of future support for a static thread library (and, more important than that, for a static runtime library!). I would be glad if there were a commitment to a static thread library without tss.
As I said, I plan to look into the feasibility of adding back static library support, limiting features as necessary. I'm afraid that until I look into it I can't commit to it any more than to say that I would really like to have static library support for some of my own projects, so I'm motivated to make it work if practical. A complicating factor is that I believe some new Boost.Thread features (currently existing only in the thread_dev branch in cvs so far, though I hope to migrate them to the main branch over the next few weeks) require tss support, so a static library that disabled tss would have to disable those features as well. I plan to look into this further soon. Though I've only built and used the Win32 version of Boost.Thread so far, it sounds as if static library support should at least be aded back for non-Win32 platforms, which don't have the dynamic library requirement. Is that correct? Mike
Stefan
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost