Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-18 11:12:35

On 18/10/2018 08:52, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> b) In the case I described and tested with #111 (and now even with #128)
>> There are 2 shared libraries with their own instances of the singletons
>> (this can be checked by debugging the ctor/dtor of them). The lifetime
>> mismatch happens due to "some linux mechanism" destroying same types from
>> different libraries at the same time invalidating the expectation of each
>> library. Example (actually witnessed by printf-debugging)
> Using static libs in shared libs is a recipe for disaster isn't it?

I was about to agree with you, but there is one very important use case
- that of the application pluggin.  In that situation one would expect
that as long as everything is built with -fvisibility-hidden so that
each shared library is entirely self contained, then everything should
really be fine.


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

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