Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 18:13:05
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Thomas Heller via Boost
> Absolutely not. I'd prefer to link against compiled libraries. If only to
> reduce compile times.
Nothing wrong with the OPTION to link against Boost.System, but
header-only should be the default. Its easier for users and gives a
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost
>> ...ASIO header only users almost certainly will also want
>> header only Boost.System.
> I don't think so (although now that it has been fixed to use Winapi instead
> of <windows.h>, maybe).
> But even if true, users of static library A that uses Asio will not
> necessarily want a header-only Boost.System, which means that static library
> A has to have a way to link to Asio "statically".
For reference, here is the ONE .cpp file which makes Boost.System not
and here's that one header it includes
We make people link against Boost.System just for that? Especially
when std::error_code is a built in for C++11 and later? It seems
Boost.System should be header-only by default. Then, Asio users will
never need a link dependency.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk