Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] [release] possible linking problem with atomic
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-11 12:15:39
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> That would be a useful improvement and there were discussions of this
> recently (in the context of porting Boost.SmatrPtr to Boost.Atomic). In
> particular, I proposed to provide a header-only interface for types that
> be made atomic on the target platform and a separately included
> fallback that would require linking.
Is there any point in building a static Boost.Atomic library? I see why it'd
be necessary to have the spinlock pool in its own DLL on Windows, but a
static library doesn't seem to be adding anything. DLLs will still have
separate copies of the spinlock pool. You might as well keep it header-only.