Re: [boost] Lighweight header-only version of Boost.Filesystem?

Subject: Re: [boost] Lighweight header-only version of Boost.Filesystem?
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-25 18:14:44

Vicente Botet wrote:
> 
> Le 24/08/11 04:41, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
>> on Sat Aug 20 2011, "Vicente J. Botet
>> Escriba"<vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr>  wrote:
>>
>>>>> Vicente
>>>>> Botet tried to do the same with Boost.System, and ran into problems.
>>> I reached to get a header-only version of Boost.System. The main
>>> issues raised by Beman were that we need to have a consensus on how
>>> all the header only libraries behave under cygwin respect to the WIN
>>> not WIN interface. IMO when we use cygwin we shouldn't use the Windows
>>> API, Bemans prefered to use it as it was available.
>> What does "under cygwin" mean, exactly?
>>
>> It seems to me like a no-brainer that when the target OS is Cygwin, we
>> should use the cygwin POSIX APIs, and when the target OS is Windows (as
>> it might be when using cygwin GCC with the -mno-cygwin flag), we should
>> use the Windows APIs.  Is there anything more to this decision than
>> that?
>>
> 
> I don't remember exactly the source of the problem, but when I tried to 
> use Boost.Chrono and Boost.System inlined both libraries where not using 
> the same interface. 
> 

Hi,

I found where the problem was. Boost.System defines the global macro
BOOST_WINDOWS_API when __CYGWIN__ is defined.

# if defined(_WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) // Windows default, including
MinGW and Cygwin
#   define BOOST_WINDOWS_API
# else
#   define BOOST_POSIX_API
# endif

This couldn't work if other Boost libraries defines also BOOST_POSIX_API in
the same conditions.

Best,
Vicente

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Lighweight-header-only-version-of-Boost-Filesystem-tp3749876p3769551.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.