Date: 2001-10-22 12:19:28
--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "Carl Daniel" <cpdaniel_at_p...>
> > IMO, information like that which Rogue Wave encoded in their C,
W, G and T
> > fields is still useful and could avoid
> > unpleasant incompatibilities when (not if) people dump Boost DLLs
> > Windows/System32.
> Isn't System File Protection supposed to prevent this?
> > I will confess to have not attempted a Boost build with any
system, but I
> was a
> > bit surprised from the original post
> > that started this thread: I wouldn't expect (or want)
> > ANY DLLs at all. I hope that the build
> > process can produce static libs in addition/instead of DLLs for
> I, too, prefer static libs, but in some cases - boost.threads comes
> mind - DLLs are necessary. Note that I'm not only referring to
> threadmon.dll; the whole threads library needs to be in a DLL if
you have an
> application and a DLL that both use boost.threads.
Yes, and one of my todos is to add a full Boost.Threads DLL build.
Before the review I attempted this and ran into several issues which
prevented it, but I'll get back to this once I've wrapped up other
loose ends. In the mean time, if anyone else succeeds in doing this
I'd love for them to share with me ;).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk