Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] [release] possible linking problem with atomic
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-11 03:15:39
On Thursday 10 January 2013 22:08:28 Edward Diener wrote:
> On 1/10/2013 1:17 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > As I understand, static libs are the default on Windows. So unless
> > specified otherwise, Boost.Atomic follows other libs in this regard.
> I highly doubt that "static libs are the default on Windows", however
> you deem to determine such a thing, from my own practical experience as
> a developer and end-user.
I was referring to Boost.Build defaults on Windows. I'm not judging whether
the choice is justified, I'm just pointing out that Boost.Atomic follows the
default build options on that platform.
> Nearly all applications for Windows on which I have worked as well all
> major applications which I have used are distributed as applications
> with DLLs rather than as monolithic applications built by linking in
> static libraries.
I'd say there are applications built with both approaches and we cannot base
our expectations on a few select ones.
> Needless to say the MS .Net framework as well as the
> new Windows 8 run-time framework is built around DLLs ( or assemblies )
> rather than static libraries.
> In Visual Studio, easily the most popular Windows IDE, the VC++ modules
> all link by default to the DLL version of libraries ( RTL, MFC, ATL etc.
> etc. ). Of course you can change this but the default is DLLs, not
> static libs.
Yes, you're right, although the libraries you list are typically available in
Windows distribution and applications need not to worry distributing them.
Boost is different in this regard.
I'm not advocating for the static linking approach. Either way has its pros
and cons. FWIW, I would probably prefer to build everything by default and let
the user decide what he wants.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk