From: Russell Hind (rhind_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-26 10:19:46
William E. Kempf wrote:
> Theoretically at least, I don't see why this would cause a problem. You
> intentionally leak, but the leak is benign since it occurs only right
> before the application exits. But most users won't code this way, nor do
> I want to have to deal with the support requests/questions this would
> cause. So, unless you have some suggestion as to how I can enable this
> usage with out causing confusion, I'm not sure I'd care to re-enable
> static builds. But you could probably fairly easily hack things to build
> that way yourself.
No, I wasn't going to ask you to re-enable static linking because of
this. As you rightly pointed out in the other thread, you have to make
the library safe for all possible cases which is what you are doing.
If we did decide to go this route, then we would certainly handle
building the lib ourselves.
Our problem with DLLs is this: We work on many projects. Some are in
maintenance only mode, so don't get many updates. The next project may
use boost-1.30.0 and then go into maintenance. I may then be working on
a project which uses boost-1.32.0 and would like to keep both dlls
available on the system.
Current idea for doing this is re-naming the boost dlls to
boost_thread-1.30.0.dll etc so that I can have 1 bin directory with all
the dlls in, and each project would link and use the correct dll. I
wonder if support for this could be built into the builds?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk