Re: [boost] [context review] Review - alternative version available

Subject: Re: [boost] [context review] Review - alternative version available
From: Oliver Kowalke (oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-22 16:46:45

Am 22.03.2011 21:20, schrieb Vicente BOTET:
> Oliver, please it would be simpler if we review only one library. You 
> could post here whatever you want, patches, explanations, but please 
> don't request the reviewers to review another package.
>
ok

> Could you elaborate more on the asm_impl point, I think I've missed something? Please post here whatever do you want to change.
>

Artyom has requested in its last postings that boost.context should 
compile the implementations for fcontext (using assembler) as well 
ucontext/Win Fiber (provided by the operating system)  instead select 
one at compile-time with bjam options.

The user can now decide which impl should be choosen by selecting the 
corresponding class:

context< stack, asm_impl > : uses fcontext/assembler if available 
(Windows is currently disabled)
context< stack, native_impl > : uses ucontext from C-lib on UNIX (if 
implemented) and Windows Fibers on Windows

I believe Artyom has right with his concerns about the ABI issues 
(binary compatiblity) - I would probably prefer the alternative solution.
Because I got little feedback in the last year I'd like to use this 
review to get some comments for the alternative version.

I remember you already ask for such a solution some weeks ago.

regards,
Oliver