On Thursday 24 October 2013 09:19:09 Sergey Cheban wrote:
24.10.2013 4:53, Andrey Semashev пишет:
I think if the user targets for XP compatibility, he has to define _WIN32_WINNT anyway, and not just for his code but also for all the third- party code he compiles. If he uses externally built binaries, he has to trust the provider of these binaries that they were built compatible with XP (i.e. with _WIN32_WINNT defined).
Many of external libraries do not use the Windows SDK at all (zlib, for example). So, it depends. I prefer not to use the externally built libraries but some people use them.
Libraries that don't use Windows SDK are irrelevant for the sake of this discussion. But it is rarely a documented feature, so you would have to inspect its code to verify that or just define _WIN32_WINNT to be on the safe side.
With this approach, our library will contain both implementations of the condvar class (providing the SDK is not too old). To choose between them, developers will have to define _WIN32_WINNT for their applications but will not have to recompile our library.
That won't work because condvar_vista would involve functions that are not present in XP. Any built Boost binary will contain references to these functions and will not load on XP.
No. The condvar_vista won't be included into the binary because it won't be used (providing _WIN32_WINNT==0x0501 for the user's code). The whole condvar_vista.obj will be linked out. So, the vista-specific functions won't be referenced and the code will be WinXP-compatible.
If condvar_vista is compiled into a dll, it won't be linked out. If you don't compile it because _WIN32_WINNT == 0x0501 then that's the current approach already. And it requires _WIN32_WINNT to be defined when Boost itself is built.