[boost] Re: Thread lib (good reason for static)

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-01 18:20:06

I'm working on supporting static linking in Boost.Threads.

Have you determined why the statically linked version runs so much
faster?

Mike

"Peter Danford" <pdanford_qed_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:20040601230327.7391.qmail_at_web60603.mail.yahoo.com...
> I am using WinXP (actually, a cluster of up to 25 machines) with
.NET 7.1. Occasionally on Linux but the XP cluster is the primary
target.
>
> Also, I remember reading somewhere that optimizers cannot do some
optimizations on dlls.
>
> I would be quite happy with very basic threading (ie only that
offered in the thread class) as a static lib. The rest is certainly
not essential.
>
> Some of the other posts mentioned not liking RTL dlls because of
deployment headaches (in high volume).
>
> Boost seems to be such a nice effort, it would be a real shame if
they decide to not support high end users. As is stands now, the
Threads not offering a static subset means we cannot use it because
the computational hit is enormous on XP platforms.
>
> I will try the below suggestion to see the difference on Linux, but
if it is true some optimizations are not available on shared libs, it
may still be problematic.
>
> Peter
>
> Trey Jackson <tjackson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> You didn't mention what OS/compiler you are using.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>