Date: 2003-08-29 10:58:15
I'm just a lurker/user, but speaking from the perspective of someone who
writes code that uses boost that customers compile, defaulting to *BOTH*
single and MT would sure make my life easier. IMHO, the extra build time
may be important to silicon-based life forms, but eliminating the learning,
explanation and maintenance that falls to various carbon units involved
would more than make up for it. Maybe default=both for 1_31_0?
Besides, everyone knows that it's the apps that are important and are
compiled over and over - this is JUST THE LIBRARY that makes it work!
> Agreed. Still, this doesn't imply you shouldn't _also_ provide
> multi-threaded libs by default. I mean, what is it to you if
> there's libboost_filesystem_mt.a, libboost_regex_mt.so, etc. for
> multi threading, while you can simply use -lboost_regex when
> linking your single threaded application?
I don't have a problem with that, except that it increases the size of
the build and the time taken. But its not a big issue as you can always
control whats done through the build system.
> The default build is single threaded, while there's also by default a
> Boost.Threads build, which is at least partially useless, because I
> can't use it together with boost libraries that require linking.
> Now that surprises me...
It shouldn't. But if the default was to build boost for both single and
MT, would that take away the surprise?
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk