Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] [release] possible linking problem with atomic
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-11 13:41:37
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> > 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.
Isn't this only true on Windows? (Unless the spinlock pool has
visibility=hidden, but it shouldn't).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk