Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Dmitry Goncharov (dgoncharov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-09 11:28:22
Frank Mori Hess wrote:
>> 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.
The current version of boost/thread/pthread/mutex.hpp directly includes
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk