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

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)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkneFzgACgkQ5vihyNWuA4XNuwCaA39VGu4fhjdrBf11rCHRZsG/
> vLcAoI48bloHsUX/V69PzlI8Ff7VuL5A
> =SQDv
> -----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?

BR, Dmitry