[boost] Re: Re:(For me a) showstopper [was: boost thread static library]

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 13:39:20

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Stefan Slapeta wrote:
>
>> 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
>> which strategy to choose for boost.thread at all:
>
>> Sorry for this critisism. I know about all your efforts and
>> appreciate them very much. This time it seems that the need for new
>> functionality broke too much of existing code for my taste!
>
> I'm not sure I'm following all this.  Given that you are understand
> what the consequences of building and using a static library in this
> context, and you decide that they are not a problem for you, what
> prevents you from building your own statically linked library and
> using it in your own projects? Wouldn't that solve your whole issue

His problem is that if he builds a statically linked library and uses the
Boost threads library, he will be using a shared library and all the shared
RTL libraries also, since that is what the shared Boost threads library
needs to work.

I also have found that mixing static and shared libraries in any situation
quite often leads to problems. In this latter respect, one should use all
shared libraries or all static libraries, instead of mixing in both.