Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Linker error with boost_1_36_0
Date: 2008-10-10 13:39:30
Why is a static library a better option than a dynamic link library in most
As a Windows developer (don't enjoy labelling myself that way but it is
true) I have always been partial to DLL's. And I think that the "default"
behavior a Windows developer expects is DLL's at least it is for me.
My current opinion is that BOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK should be mentioned in the
"Getting Started on Windows" documentation.
Sent by: boost-users_at_[hidden]
Re: [Boost-users] Linker error with
Please respond to
> Adding the following define to your preprocessor definitions should take
> care of the problem:
> This should probably be mentioned in the getting started documentation.
> spent nearly a day on this recently.
It's worth mentioning that the reason this is necessary is because by
only shared libraries are built, but by default static libraries are
So an alternative to the above preprocessor definition (and the better
most cases, IMO) is to build static boost libs (either invoke bjam with
--build-type=complete or with link=static).
Boost-users mailing list
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the
individual or company to which it is addressed and may contain
information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from
disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the
information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the
sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please
return the material received to the sender and delete all copies
from your system.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net