Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] [release] possible linking problem with atomic
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-11 13:05:52
>> 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.
that's exactly the reason, why i suggested to build a shared library
only. multi-module applications should *not* link to a static lib if
they share atomic objects.
being able to use a (lock-free) subset as header-only library would be
quite convenient, though ...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk