Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: John Bellone (jb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-31 07:00:59
Awesome work. Glad I'll be able to start tinkering with it again.
On Aug 30, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Boris Schaeling wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:52:00 +0200, Vladimir Prus <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Thank you very much for running the test cases! Looking at the values
>>> <target-os> can be set to I wonder which other plaforms need -pthread:
>>> aix, bsd, cygwin, darwin, freebsd, hpux, iphone, linux, netbsd, openbsd,
>>> osf, qnx, qnxnto, sgi, solaris, unix, unixware, windows
>>> So far it's Linux and FreeBSD. Or does unix mean it's set for all
>>> Unix-like platforms?
>> Well, if you're using pthread_create, then using threading=multi seems
>> like a better approach than linking to the pthread library directly. Is
>> this not good idea for some reason?
> I checked now why I even had to add -lpthread if it wasn't required in earlier Boost.Process drafts: The new status class uses a worker thread to support asynchronous I/O. So yes, threading=multi is the natural choice. ;) Updated in SVN and in the ZIP file.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk