[boost] Re: [thread] Why is there a restriction for the runtimelibraries?

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-06 15:05:27

"Stefan Slapeta" <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:cp1nnh$mli$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Roland Schwarz wrote:
>
>> I think the problem is of how to deduce how the boost libs should 
>> be linked in when the user does not explicitely
>> specifiy e.g. BOOST_USE_LIB.
>> A reasonable default in this case would be then to link in the 
>> library corresponding to the RTL choice.
>
> I don't know if this is reasonable but it's different from what 
> other boost libraries do (which _always_ default to linking the 
> corresponding static boost lib).
> If there is a rational behind that, it should be documented!
>
>> The code snippet refers to the default choice doesn't it?
>> #   else //Use default
>> The comment
>>            //For VC++, choose according to threading library 
>> setting
>> should better read
>>            //For VC++, choose according to C-runtime library 
>> setting
>> of course.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>
> yes, if the behaviour remains unchanged, this should be fixed.
>
> Anyway, IMO it's a clear bug in the jamfile that the boost.thread 
> libraries for the [dynamic] rt configuration are not built!

Perhaps I missed something, but did you determine why it isn't being 
built? I'm not able to run a build at the moment so I can't test it 
myself right now. Earlier in this discussion the problem of the 
Boost.Threads dll requiring the C RTL dll and the Boost.Threads lib 
requiring the C RTL lib, but does that problem relate to this one?

Also, I'm far from being a jamfile wiz, so if you could suggest 
specific changes to illustrate what you think it should be, I'd 
appreciate it.

Mike