From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-17 08:08:03
Russell Hind wrote:
> Michael Glassford wrote:
>> I did get them and will look at them more closely when I get the
>> chance. Along with you and several others, I too would be interested
>> in a statically linked version of Boost.Thread (even if that requires
>> eliminating some features in the statically linked version), so I am
>> quite interested in looking at your suggestion about this.
> I would be worth searching the archives for this, as it was discussed
> numerous times, at length IIRC, by Bill and others as to why this
> shouldn't be done.
> If it is just to do with TLS, then, as you suggest, these features could
> be removed from the static version (I build it statically myself, and
> only use thread, condition and mutex) but I would be careful about this
> move because there have obviously been very good reasons for not doing
> it so far.
Thanks. I remember all the discussions (though not all the details,
which I will look up before proceeding), so I'm aware that there were
very good reasons for not having a statically linked version of
Boost.Thread. Re-introducing static linking isn't something I definitely
plan to do, only something that I would like to have happen if it is
possible and so will look into very carefully.
One thing that makes me think it might be possible is that I've been
statically linking an older version of the Boost.Thread library for
quite some time in an application where the dll is never unloaded until
the process ends and cleanup at process exit is unnecessary. In that
scenario, at least, it works quite well. I realize that since many/most
applications have different requirements, this is not an indication that
static linking will work in general.
Also, note that Roland's message that I was replying to was referring to
a previous posting of his in which he presented a technique for getting
the benefits of a dynamically linked library while statically linking it
(basically, by using the unusual technique of creating a small dll at
runtime). If it worked out (and I can see reasons, technical and
otherwise, why it might not), this would allow a statically linked
version without removing any features.
> 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