Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-07 09:33:47
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 07 April 2009, joaquin_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Looks like a sensible part of Boost.Threads, namely that
> dealing with mutexes and locks, would be header-only
> but for its relying on boost/thread/exceptions.hpp, whose
> implementation is located at /libs/thread/*/exceptions.cpp.
> Given that this .cpp mostly consists of extremely simple
> definitions (as simple as do-nothing functions in many cases),
> would it make sense to move this to inline definitions in
> boost/thread/exceptions.hpp thus making mutexes and locks
> header-only? This would greatly enhance the appeal of this
> part of Boost.Threads, as having to link a separate module
> is a considerable burden.
I second the motion. It may also allow boost::mutex to replace
detail/lightweight_mutex.hpp and signals2/mutex.hpp. The last I heard,
boost/thread/mutex.hpp and locks.hpp were actually intended to be
header-only. Maybe adding a trac ticket about it would help?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk