Vicente Botet wrote:
Le 24/08/11 04:41, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
on Sat Aug 20 2011, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba"<vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Vicente Botet tried to do the same with Boost.System, and ran into problems. I reached to get a header-only version of Boost.System. The main issues raised by Beman were that we need to have a consensus on how all the header only libraries behave under cygwin respect to the WIN not WIN interface. IMO when we use cygwin we shouldn't use the Windows API, Bemans prefered to use it as it was available. What does "under cygwin" mean, exactly?
It seems to me like a no-brainer that when the target OS is Cygwin, we should use the cygwin POSIX APIs, and when the target OS is Windows (as it might be when using cygwin GCC with the -mno-cygwin flag), we should use the Windows APIs. Is there anything more to this decision than that?
I don't remember exactly the source of the problem, but when I tried to use Boost.Chrono and Boost.System inlined both libraries where not using the same interface.
Hi, I found where the problem was. Boost.System defines the global macro BOOST_WINDOWS_API when __CYGWIN__ is defined. # if defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) // Windows default, including MinGW and Cygwin # define BOOST_WINDOWS_API # else # define BOOST_POSIX_API # endif This couldn't work if other Boost libraries defines also BOOST_POSIX_API in the same conditions. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Lighweight-header-only-version-of-Boost-F... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.