From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-05 15:36:30
Sohail Somani wrote:
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
>> Thinking about it a bit more, there is a third reason that
>> shouldn't be doing that. BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS is a user
>> macro, and the
>> config system shouldn't be touching it.
>> The easiest solution is to ignore Boost.Config until the meanings of
>> _HAS_THREADS and _DISABLE_THREADS are sorted out and check
>> everything at the
>> library level.
> Hey, this sounds awesome. So you seem to be suggesting that
> Boost.Config should not touch *_THREADS until we sort out the meaning
> of those?
I was suggesting that it would be easier to just make Boost.Threads work
instead of fixing Boost.Config. But now that I looked at the code, it
doesn't really seem that much easier. There is a comment in win32.hpp:
// Win32 will normally be using native Win32 threads,
// but there is a pthread library avaliable as an option,
// we used to disable this when BOOST_DISABLE_WIN32 was
// defined but no longer - this should allow some
// files to be compiled in strict mode - while maintaining
// a consistent setting of BOOST_HAS_THREADS across
// all translation units (needed for shared_ptr etc).
that indicates that our past discussion (this is not the first time this
comes up) has had an effect. Mixing /Za and /Ze still seems to result in
inconsistent BOOST_HAS_THREADS, though. This breaks
detail/lightweight_mutex, for example. It even seems to break Regex, there
are a number of BOOST_HAS_THREADS checks there that use the "are we in MT
mode" meaning of the macro, as opposed to its "do we have a threading API"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk