Boost logo

Boost :

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-07 18:35:26


I thought I had sent this yesterday, but I guess not...

"Stefan Slapeta" <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:cp2gld$7r8$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Michael Glassford wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I missed something, but did you determine why it isn't
>> being built?
>
> Yes, this was the reason for my original posting. If there are no
> objections, I'll commit these changes. I'm sure the restrictions
> below just exist for historical reasons (I can't explain either why
> e.g. a static boost.thread library shouldn't use a dynamic rt).
>
> diff -u -r1.34 Jamfile
> --- Jamfile 19 Aug 2004 19:27:15 -0000 1.34
> +++ Jamfile 6 Dec 2004 20:43:47 -0000
> @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@
> : ## requirements ##
> <sysinclude>$(BOOST_ROOT) #:should be unnecessary
> (because already included in thread_base)
> <define>BOOST_THREAD_BUILD_LIB=1
> - <runtime-link>static
> # the common names rule ensures that the library will
> # be named according to the rules used by the install
> # and auto-link features:
> @@ -61,7 +60,6 @@
> : ## requirements ##
> <sysinclude>$(BOOST_ROOT) #:should be unnecessary
> (because already included in thread_base)
> <define>BOOST_THREAD_BUILD_DLL=1
> - <runtime-link>dynamic
> # the common names rule ensures that the library will
> # be named according to the rules used by the install
> # and auto-link features:

Wouldn't this have the opposite problem of not allowing a static
boost.threads library to link to a static rtl? Or am I
misunderstanding the <runtime-link> option?

Mike


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk