Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Brian Wood (woodbrian77_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 14:26:28
Anthony Williams writes:
>Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I am against such a move. Boost Threads requires linking for other
>> features which makes it one of the few libraries in Boost that can be
>> properly designed to avoid unnecessary physical coupling. Unless
>> something is proven to cause performance problems it should not be
>> inlined, regardless of how simple it is.
>Wow, that's a hard line you've drawn there. I'm not sure I agree. The
>only reason this matters is if you're going to be changing the
>implementation and don't want to recompile the code that uses the
>header. For boost users, the implementation only changes if they change
>boost versions, and in that case I would expect people to recompile
>anyway --- I wouldn't trust something compiled against boost 1.37 to
>link against a 1.38 lib, for example.
I'm sure you know more about Boost than I do, but I disagree that
the implementation only changes when users change versions. There
are fixes that have to be applied by users to libraries from time to time.
I tend to agree with Emil's arguments here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk