From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 07:04:07
"Stefan Slapeta" <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Michael Glassford wrote:
> > It is no longer supported: the tss class requires Boost.Thread to
> > in a dll to be able to clean up after itself properly (i.e. to
> > leaks). It would be possible to build a version that doesn't
> > support for this, but in a future version of Boost.Thread
> > in the thread_dev branch of CVS), I believe several new features
> > depend on this support being available so it may not be worthwhile
> > do so.
> There's one more big "surprise": the need for the shared runtime
> libraries! I'm very frustrated at the moment because I don't know
> strategy to choose for boost.thread at all:
> - IMO, it's not a 'little fish' to change the runtime libraries of
> 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
> moment an absolute showstopper for moving to a future release of
> It is not easy to explain the costs for deploying the shared runtime
> library on some thousand machines.
I'm aware of this cost as I have the same problem myself. As I
mentioned in another post, it is still possible, if you are aware of
the issues involved and set up an appropriate build yourself, to use
Boost.Thread in a static library.
For what it's worth, I'm hoping to investigate what it would take to
make Boost.Thread support a static library option again in the future.
If such a thing ever happened (no promises), it would have to be a
version in which features that require the dll are disabled.
> Personally, I'm very disappointed as it seems to be possible in
> that a whole library becomes unusable for me in a future release.
> the best example of backward compatibility!]
> - There is NO WORD about that in the whole documentation.
True, and this should be fixed.
> If there is one, you hid it very well!
I'm not the one who made the change, only the messenger who's telling
you about them.
> What is even worse: there is no word about
> ANY CHANGES in boost thread in the release notes!
That's because this change is quite old. If I remember correctly, it
was made in the 1.30 release.
> Sorry for this critisism. I know about all your efforts and
> them very much. This time it seems that the need for new
> broke too much of existing code for my taste!
> br, Stefan
> 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