[threads] final decision on making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
Hi, A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40? As a remainder, I've created an associated trac ticket: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2964 Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Hi, I dislike the idea because it bloadens the the binaries (with boost the object files become extermly large in size). If possible I'd suggest to provide an argument to bjam enabling header-only boost.thread or not. Oliver Am Montag 11 Mai 2009 21:59:50 schrieb JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ:
Hi,
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
As a remainder, I've created an associated trac ticket:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2964
Thank you,
Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote:
Hi,
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
I haven't read all of that thread, but why not do something similar to what Boost.Test does and provide an header-only/"include" version, with reduced functionality? / Johan
on Wed May 13 2009, "Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote:
Hi,
A few weeks ago we had a discussion about the convenience of making part of Boost.Threads, namely mutexes and locks, header-only. Some (including Anthony Williams) supported the idea, others disliked it:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/04/150524.php
What the final decision on this issue is? If positive (i.e. favoring the change), can it be expected to be done for Boost 1.40?
I haven't read all of that thread, but why not do something similar to what Boost.Test does and provide an header-only/"include" version, with reduced functionality?
In principle it's possible to write the library such that you can use it either way, with full functionality. Not sure whether that's worth the effort, but it has been proposed on this list before. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (4)
-
David Abrahams -
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ -
Johan Nilsson -
k-oli＠gmx.de