Boost logo

Boost :

From: Steve Hutton (shutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-27 18:04:14

In article <012e01c36c88$570d3020$85c66b51_at_fuji>, John Maddock wrote:
> but remember that thread safe and non-thread-safe lib builds are very
> unlikely to be binary compatible (this is true of the C++ std lib as well
> BTW).
> We are aware that this is an issue, and there is work going on to provide an
> install procedure, that will address this by mangling library names. I hope
> we can provide an official rpm specs file as well, but that may have to
> wait...

Any thoughts on more explicitly documenting the #defines used to toggle optional
features in header-only boost modules?

Boost Config seems to hide those details fairly effectively for developers
who don't distribute their code (or distribute Boost along with their code).

The problem I see is that developers who distribute code that depends on
boost can't count on the user's version of Boost being configured in any
particular way (or at all - the docs suggest just untarring it as a valid
way to use the header-only modules).


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at