From: Russell Hind (rhind_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 06:44:49
Stefan Slapeta wrote:
> - IMO, it's not a 'little fish' to change the runtime libraries of all
> projects that use Boost.Thread. This and the necessity to ship an
> additional boost.thread dll is, at least for me and our company, at the
> moment an absolute showstopper for moving to a future release of boost!
> It is not easy to explain the costs for deploying the shared runtime
> library on some thousand machines.
> Personally, I'm very disappointed as it seems to be possible in boost,
> that a whole library becomes unusable for me in a future release. [Not
> the best example of backward compatibility!]
Well it isn't boosts' fault. It is a limitation in the way win32
handles thread cleanup and stuff and currently there isn't a work-around
for it. I suggest bug reports to Microsoft rather than having a go at
the volunteer boost developers.
> - There is NO WORD about that in the whole documentation. If there is
> one, you hid it very well! What is even worse: there is no word about
> ANY CHANGES in boost thread in the release notes!
Ok, this I agree with. There was no mention of this in the changes for
1.30.x and there probably should have been, but it is fairly obvious the
first time you build boost::thread from 1.30.x that it isn't there, so
stick with 1.29.0 until you are at a stage where distributing shared
runtimes might be possible. We can't blame boost developers for
limitations in the windows OS itself.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk