RE: [boost] Does Boost really need to be put in object libraries?

From: Matthew Hurd (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-13 05:50:23

> On Behalf Of Daryle Walker
> Subject: [boost] Does Boost really need to be put in object libraries?
<snip>
I often include the cpp files into a make or project instead of linking
against bjam prepared files too.  My current project has a couple of libs
one of which just includes the test cpps and one which includes the
necessary date_time cpps.  I also build my own thread.dll which includes
some of the thread dev branch.

So I guess I must agree the easier the better, but the current set up really
doesn't really cause me any problem as, after all, the files are all there
in /libs.  It's not too much effort to grab what you need.

I do see a particularly vexing issue with the ublas lib though.  Getting the
right optimization setting with the right compiler does make an enormous
difference to performance... You are disadvantaged if you don't have the
u-beaut compiler for which it has been best tuned.  Intel C++ is
particularly good on the ublas because of the vectorization tuning that has
taken place.

Shouldn't the community at large be able to benefit from this through the
distribution of object libs/dlls?  What does this mean for template
instantiation?  For example is the float, double and complex enough or too
much for out of the box ublas?  What about long double, int, intervals, etc.
Is it even possible to distribute in such a manner?  I don't think it is
practical, but I think it is needed...

If it is worthwhile for this particularly performance oriented lib then
where should the line be drawn as then it comes down to a matter of degree.

Personally, I think this is all too hard and the current setup is a
perfectly reasonable compromise.

Regards,

Matt Hurd.