From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-04 13:00:49
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Maddock
> Sohail Somani wrote:
> > Any opinions on this? It is a patch against 1.33.1. It is
> meant to be
> > non-intrusive: nothing should change unless you want it to. The idea
> > is
> > that when building boost threads, you require language
> extensions via
> > your silence on BOOST_NO_REQUIRE_LANGUAGE_EXTENSIONS but if you are
> > not building boost threads, you don't need language extensions. The
> > idea is
> > that BOOST_DISABLE_WIN32 does not need to be defined if language
> > extensions are not needed.
> > I would appreciate any feedback towards a possible patch. I am
> > currently running the boost thread tests and hoping that they don't
> > fail ;) If all
> > goes well, I will rebuild the rest of boost as well and run tests
> > there.
> Unfortunately that's going to break all kinds of things: Regex and
> Boost.Test almost for sure. I suggest you do a grep for
> and BOOST_HAS_THREADS: you will find their use ubiquitous
> throughout Boost.
Thanks for your reply John. I've made some modifications to the patch
which I have uploaded to the tracker @ http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhndak
After I made the patch, I ran all the boost tests and nothing went
wrong. Are you expecting silent failures?
Note that the patch at the URL is a bit different than the one I posted
originally (after I did some real testing!)
Are you more for something boost thread specific? I don't know but imho
the libraries should differentiate between config requirements when
building vs when using.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk