Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only

Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-09 11:17:41

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 09 April 2009, Anteru wrote:
> Dmitry Goncharov schrieb:
>
> 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.

Isn't arguing that boost::mutex shouldn't be made header-only due to concerns 
about compile time even more bogus?  The reason the header-only suggestion 
was brought up in the first place was that the code in question is so trivial 
it won't impact compile times to put in entirely in the header.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkneEZUACgkQ5vihyNWuA4X/pQCgtHso+9ILb7HWSUkAqIt2JvP0
uN4AoKlXJRDfpiA5PI8UYBihL1R52kQM
=xEx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----