On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 04:13:43PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
Actually, I just don't want to pay for MT, unless I really mean to use the code in MT environment.
I understand that, but we have to decide how to handle this, so that it is actualy safe, and in particular boost headers should honor the compilers default setting.
I think I'm confused over what's "default setting" is, and if it important. I think the point is that 1. User should be able to specify if boost libraries should be thread-safe 2. He should do this with a minimum of effort. This is especially important for compile-only library
So, if compiler has an option to tell if application should be build in MT mode, *that option* should affect thread safety of boost libraries. It's actually not very related to MT-safety of standard lib.
That's exactly what the previous config that relied on _REENTRANT was supposed to do. (It was imperfect since not all platforms defined the macro when -pthread was given - it only really worked for Linux and a few other platforms) And if a new macro such as __GXX_PTHREADS is added for GCC 3.4.1 then I assume it's exactly what the new Boost config will try to do too.
Quite the contrary, I think we need to respect compiler switches, but not library settings. Anyway, this is only important if we can get gcc to reliable report -pthread presense.
Which should happen for 3.4.1. In any case Boost should document that you need to explicitly define BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS if using GCC 3.4.0 and you don't want MT. jon -- "He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know." - Lao Tze