I thought I had sent this yesterday, but I guess not... "Stefan Slapeta" <stefan@slapeta.com> wrote in message news:cp2gld$7r8$1@sea.gmane.org...
Michael Glassford wrote:
Perhaps I missed something, but did you determine why it isn't being built?
Yes, this was the reason for my original posting. If there are no objections, I'll commit these changes. I'm sure the restrictions below just exist for historical reasons (I can't explain either why e.g. a static boost.thread library shouldn't use a dynamic rt).
diff -u -r1.34 Jamfile --- Jamfile 19 Aug 2004 19:27:15 -0000 1.34 +++ Jamfile 6 Dec 2004 20:43:47 -0000 @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@ : ## requirements ## <sysinclude>$(BOOST_ROOT) #:should be unnecessary (because already included in thread_base) <define>BOOST_THREAD_BUILD_LIB=1 - <runtime-link>static # the common names rule ensures that the library will # be named according to the rules used by the install # and auto-link features: @@ -61,7 +60,6 @@ : ## requirements ## <sysinclude>$(BOOST_ROOT) #:should be unnecessary (because already included in thread_base) <define>BOOST_THREAD_BUILD_DLL=1 - <runtime-link>dynamic # the common names rule ensures that the library will # be named according to the rules used by the install # and auto-link features:
Wouldn't this have the opposite problem of not allowing a static boost.threads library to link to a static rtl? Or am I misunderstanding the <runtime-link> option? Mike