Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-06 20:20:12

Stefan Slapeta wrote:
> Michael Glassford wrote:
>> Perhaps I missed something, but did you determine why it isn't being
>> built?
> Yes, this was the reason for my original posting. If there are no
> objections, I'll commit these changes. I'm sure the restrictions below
> just exist for historical reasons (I can't explain either why e.g. a
> static boost.thread library shouldn't use a dynamic rt).

Despite the fact that other Boost libs have their static libs use a dynamic
RTL there is a reason to do otherwise. Many programmers have historically
wanted to build a single executable without any shared libraries for their
application. This can be done if the static libs used by that executable all
use the static RTL. Once one of those static libs uses the dynamic RTL it is
no longer possible to do this, and there is no way, using such a library, to
build a single executable that can be distributed without any shared

I do not so much mind that other people disagree with me about having static
libs use the static RTL and shared libs ( dlls on Windows ) use the dynamic
RTL, but I do mind it when others can not understand the simple argument,
whether agreed with or not, I have just specified as a reason for doing so.
Of course if Boost does not feel that they have to cater to those wishing to
build a single executable without any shared libraries, that is fine with
me. I just want to point out that if the default situation is to have static
libs use the static RTL and shared libs use the dynamic RTL, developers can
get the best of both worlds; either a single monolithic executable or an
executable where all libraries are shared, depending on whether they choose
to use static libs or shared libs when building their application.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at