On 1/12/2013 5:37 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi,
in order to fix this issue, https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5752 : "boost::call_once() is unreliable on some platforms", I would like to use Boost.Atomic as suggested on the ticket. As Boost.Atomic is not a header-only library the user would need to link with boost_atomic.
As long as I can link against a static lib, I've got no problem.
Is this an acceptable change? I'm requesting this as recently there were some people reactive to some changes in Boost.Thread. Would this be considered an compatibility issue?
To me it is acceptable. I don't look at it as being a compatibility issue, assuming no semantic differences, other than fixing the reliability of call_once.
If yes should the fix for the call_once issue be included if the user request it using conditional compilation or even go on a separated version of Boost.Thread?
If a single implementation works, I would avoid the complexity of conditional compilation, or splitting a new lib. Jeff