Boost logo

Boost Interest :

From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-27 00:40:37

Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Doug Gregor wrote:
>>> I suggest that the vast majority of users should be using the
>>> multi-threaded versions; those that truly will only use Boost in
>>> single-threaded environments and are copying shared_ptrs so often that
>>> their performance is at risk can flip the right switches to build
>>> Boost differently. Few people need that freedom, so the rest of the
>>> users shouldn't pay for it with more complexity.
>> OK, agreed. Now do you think that auto-linking makes mangling make
>> sense on Windows, or should we drop it there, too?
> That's a much, much tougher call, because the situation is different
> on Windows for a couple reasons:
> - We don't have propert DLL versioning (unless I'm missing something)
> - At least one major vendor makes it insanely easy to build
> link-incompatible code (*cough* _SECURE_SCL *cough*)

By 'drop' do you mean 'make non-default'? The ability to configure
mangling is in our cmake already, I think all you need here is sensible


Boost-cmake list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at