Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers

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.

John.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus