Subject: Re: [boost] [threads] making parts of Boost.Threads header-only
From: Dmitry Goncharov (dgoncharov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-09 12:05:01
Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Thursday 09 April 2009, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
>> Frank Mori Hess wrote:
>>> 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
>> 11 headers.
> And your point is? I'm not saying including mutex.hpp has no effect on
> compile time. I'm saying making the changes that would free mutex.hpp from
> dependence on the compiled boost.thread library would have no effect on
> compile time (as compared to the current version).
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I poorly expressed what i meant.
Currently mutex.hpp includes too much. There is only one templated
member-function. Everything else along with those 11 headers could
reside in mutex.cpp.
That would decrease compile time, wouldn't that?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk