Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [thread] Can Boost.Thread use Boost.Atomic without falling on a compatibility issue?
From: Jeff Flinn (Jeffrey.Flinn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-13 13:44:27

On 1/12/2013 5:37 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Hi,
> in order to fix this issue,
> : "boost::call_once() is unreliable on some platforms", I would like to
> use Boost.Atomic as suggested on the ticket. As Boost.Atomic is not a
> header-only library the user would need to link with boost_atomic.

As long as I can link against a static lib, I've got no problem.

> Is this an acceptable change? I'm requesting this as recently there were
> some people reactive to some changes in Boost.Thread. Would this be
> considered an compatibility issue?

To me it is acceptable. I don't look at it as being a compatibility
issue, assuming no semantic differences, other than fixing the
reliability of call_once.

> If yes should the fix for the call_once issue be included if the user
> request it using conditional compilation or even go on a separated
> version of Boost.Thread?

If a single implementation works, I would avoid the complexity of
conditional compilation, or splitting a new lib.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at