Is there any point in building a static Boost.Atomic library? I see why it'd be necessary to have the spinlock pool in its own DLL on Windows, but a static library doesn't seem to be adding anything. DLLs will still have separate copies of the spinlock pool. You might as well keep it header-only.
that's exactly the reason, why i suggested to build a shared library only. multi-module applications should *not* link to a static lib if they share atomic objects.
Isn't this only true on Windows? (Unless the spinlock pool has visibility=hidden, but it shouldn't).
i'm definitely not an expert on dynamic linking, but when loading a library with dlopen (and RTLD_LOCAL), symbols in this library won't be used to resolve references in other libraries. so if two shared libraries both statically link to boost.atomic, i'd expect to have one spinlock pool per library. tim