[boost] Thread lib (good reason for static)

From: Peter Danford (pdanford_qed_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-31 12:27:06

[This is from an email about the impact of not having a static Threads lib available anymore. I wanted to post this here to see if anyone else has similar experiences since I have only seen posts about the problem of distributing RTL dlls so far - not computation time impact.]
 

Hello,
 
I was reading some some of the posts about your thread implementation and the removal of the static RTL option. I understand the technical reason for this, but I wanted to submit another compelling reason (for me) for the need for static RTL linkage even if this means loosing some of the features under win32.
 
Some of the software I develop deals with different types of analysis (such as scientific and financial). The runs can take as much as 20 hours to complete. If I do nothing but change to link with dynamic RTL, the run time is increased on average of 35%. This means and additional 7 hours of run time! So dynamic RTL is really undesirable.
 
Do you see any way of making a more limited static Boost.threads available in the next Boost release?
 

[Above I say "limited" because some of the features of the Thread lib must be implemented via dll to work under win32.]

Peter

                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger