Boost Interest :
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-27 00:46:08
troy d. straszheim wrote:
> Doug Gregor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>> 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
okay, sure. 'make non-default'
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com