From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-05 15:53:21
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> > 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?
> But now that I looked at the code, it
> doesn't really seem that much easier. There is a comment in win32.hpp:
> that indicates that our past discussion (this is not the
> first time this
> comes up) has had an effect.
Oh, I couldn't find any threads on this topic before. Maybe I should try
again :) As for that comment, that still seems to have not
differentiated between being multi-threaded and having a threading-API
for Boost.Threads available which I think is the fundamental problem as
you suggest below.
> Mixing /Za and /Ze still seems
> to result in
> inconsistent BOOST_HAS_THREADS, though.
Mixing /Za and /Ze? One can't possibly do that, can they? Or did you
mean something else.
> 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"
How can we test this? What I've currently done is the following:
#if defined(BOOST_BUILDING_THREADS) \
&& defined(BOOST_DISABLE_WIN32) && defined(_WIN32) \
&& !defined(BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS) && !defined(BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS)
# define BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS
I've run all the tests in <threading>multi and they seem to pass though
I haven't gone through the log (depending on exit code). Should I try it
In any case, I appreciate your comments.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk