From: Bohdan (gejrlaug_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-06 11:54:11
"E. Gladyshev" <egladysh_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> --- Bohdan <gejrlaug_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > If you mean your threads snipped: Yes i've seen it.
> > IMO it is more complicated and YES it has compile
> > time problems, unless you put traits implementation
> > in cpp files and move #include <OS headers> to
> > cpp files, but in this case you have
> Yes, it was my suggestion. I have put traits
> implemenations in cpp file in my proposal. #include
> <OS headers> are in cpp files as well. Sorry if my
> description was not clear. I hope you agree that in
> this case, there are not any performance issues?
> > link-to-correct-library problems again.
> We have it anyway. My solution didn't claim to resolve
> it completely, did it? However if I use thread_core.h
> directly and provide my own trait (my toy OS), it
> resolves the link-to-correct-library problems
> automatically, does it?
Not really. Example:
Link to static or dynamic (i mean import lib)
thread library problem. This decision can be made
only by linker option or by #pragma comment.
IMHO, traits can't help here.
> Win32 has really different thread models. I have
> mentioned it several times in my posts. They have
> normal threads and fibers, do they?
Ah ... sorry i've missed this point.
AFAIK fibers are present only on particular OSes.
If i don't mind they are supported for all windows
starting from win2k. This means that they are
not portable to other OSes and boost::thread
has nothing to do with them. If i don't mind boost
main objective is portability.
Anyway, if your implementation can't fix link-to-correct-library
problems ... than what we are discussing ? :)
I was thinking that THIS was discussion subject.
Am i wrong ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk