Subject: Re: [boost] [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 15:20:34
>>>> We should permit individual libraries to target only very
>>>> recent compilers, if the library author so chooses and there is
>>>> good reason.
>>> I think this is the case with boost.lockfree. It is not easy to
>>> implement it without atomics, and there are no atomics for the
>>> C++03 (yet).
>> I already suggested that Tim add Lockfree to trunk with only C++11
>> support, so you're arguing against the wind, I guess.
> And thus begins the downfall.
at one point, library authors will want to use c++11 language features
which cannot be emulated like lambdas? of course we could use c++03
one way could be to provide a c++11-only version of boost (boost), which
includes c++11 libraries and possibly strips all boost libraries, which
have been included in c++11?
> One library will start to depend on Lockfree, and soon it's all a
> right mess of trying to get anything to work on a perfectly
> conformant C++03 compiler.
boost.atomic cannot really be implemented in c++03, as it requires
assembly code and/or thread locks ... so one will always have to use
something on top like inline assembly or system-specific thread
but that is probably also the case for things like shared_ptr.
that said, if a library starts to depend on lockfree, it can still be
supported by old compilers, if boost.atomic will ever be added. i (as in
boost.atomic review manager) would be very happy to see that someone
adopts the library!
iac, will try to add lockfree to trunk this weekend
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk