Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Anteru (newsgroups_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-09 08:11:54

Dmitry Goncharov schrieb:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> 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 users compilation time matters as well. Users who don't use
> precompiled headers have to recompile
> a header only library over and over.

I tend to agree here -- I had to wrap all thread usage behind a PIMPL
because previously it would include <windows.h>, which is deadly for
compile times.

Unless there are very compelling reasons to move the stuff into the
header (like, all other mutex implementations in Boost get removed),
then I can understand it, but otherwise I'd leave it as it is. The thing
is, the argument that lightweight_mutex /could/ be removed is bogus
until there is some definite plan to remove it while doing this change,
otherwise we'll end up with having both to pay the price of higher
compile times in Boost.Thread and having a mostly redundant class
somewhere else.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at