From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-24 15:12:59
on 9/24/01 1:04 PM, williamkempf_at_[hidden] at williamkempf_at_[hidden]
> Sorry, I didn't write this stuff and didn't look close enough ;).
> However, I think it's still correct as is. I *believe* that certain
> compilers always have threading support "turned on" (gcc is one such
> compiler, isn't it?), and so the compiler portion of the config
> system defines BOOST_HAS_THREADS. Since none of the "magic macros"
> in the first section will exist in this case BOOST_HAS_THREADS is
> never redefined. The !defined(BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS) in the first
> portion is superflous because of the second portion, but it's not
> really incorrect. I'd say you could safely remove it in the first
> portion if it causes confusion, but it's technically still correct as
But many preprocessors warn if you define a macro twice. So we might need to
add a !defined(BOOST_HAS_THREADS) to that expression since BOOST_HAS_THREADS
might already be defined.
So now if you remove the !defined(BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS) that's superfluous
and add the !defined(BOOST_HAS_THREADS) that's needed, you are back to
Peter's original question.
I think Peter's right, and it should be fixed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk