From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-04 12:01:50
Peter Dimov wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>> Doug, what effect would none of BOOST_HAS_WINTHREADS,
>> BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS and BOOST_HAS_THREADS being defined have on
> BOOST_HAS_THREADS is an overloaded macro. It can mean one of two
> 1. Whether the compiler/runtime is in multithreaded mode. In this
> case, the absence of BOOST_HAS_THREADS would indicate that the
> compiler/runtime only supports a single thread, and hence, a library
> may use that to safely
> disable synchronization.
> 2. Whether a threading API is available. In this case
> BOOST_HAS_WINTHREADS and BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS provide additional
> information about which API is available.
> The problem is that BOOST_HAS_THREADS isn't very useful in practice,
> no matter what meaning is chosen. Its absence cannot be used to
> assume a single thread (because it gets turned off when there's no
> threading API), and it cannot be used to assume lack of threading API
> (because of BOOST_DISABLE_WIN32.)
> So shared_ptr ignores it as much as it can.
So the question becomes, how do you want these macros to behave?
> To get back to your question, BOOST_HAS_WINTHREADS is not used by
> shared_ptr, so it doesn't matter whether it's defined or not.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk