[boost] Re: boost.threads: Thread pool

From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-29 11:29:47

"William E. Kempf" wrote:

> > [Michel André]
> > Another question i noted that in the current boost CVS the boost.thread
> > only builds a dll version of the library and no static ones, in earlier
> > release you only needed the dll when using tss? Is it supposed to be
> > that way?
> 
> Yes.  It vastly simplifies the build process (now that we have a working
> DLL implementation), and is the version most users have been asking for
> any way.  I did expect to get some static about this, so let the debate
> begin. ;)  Note, however, that it will be a little problematic to continue
> with a build process that provides both a forms, and that the
> threadmon.dll has been the source of a lot of confusion for users, so
> there will have to be very compelling reasons to bring this build type
> back.

OK, here's some static!!

As you know from an earlier thread I aim to finally investigate
boost::thread this week (as a largely drop-in replacement for our
compiler vendor-supplied thread library)  A static build is important to
us, as we have found many support/development issues simply vanish with
a static build.  We would be very reluctant to move to a system
requiring such a .dll, especially if it means using the dynamic RTL with
our compiler (as that is where we generally hit the problems above)

I am also unsure how a standard proposal might look if we can only say
'the dynamic library version works well, but we have problems with the
static' although I have no experience of the committee to be sure.  I
would give me pause for thought.

What problems does the static build bring?  Would it be useful for
someone who does care about static builds ( thinking of no-one in
particular <g> ) to look after the issue?

-- 
AlisdairM