Re: [Boost-users] [config][build] policy for settingBOOST_HAS_THREADS?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [config][build] policy for settingBOOST_HAS_THREADS?
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-11 12:59:20

John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:

> 
> joaquin <at> tid.es wrote:
> > As most GCC environments (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) are
> > nowadays multithreaded,
> > would it make sense to change GCC Boost.Build bjam rules so that
> > threading=simple results in
> > BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS being defined?
> 
> Sigh... no, while that would no doubt fix a few tests, what users were 
> asking for (and what we now build by default) is a single binary for 
> gcc/*nix systems that can be used irrespective of whether they're using 
> threads or not.  In other words we want to fix the Boost ABI to be the same 
> as the libstdc++ ABI, no matter whether a default threading-single build is 
> done or not.

What does defining/not defining BOOST_DISABLE_THREADS have
to do with the Boost ABI? If currently the only effect of selecting
threading=multi/single is whether Pthreads is linked/not linked,
then the macro just reflects this into the world of Boost.Config.
Is by chance BOOST_HAS_THREADS affecting the lib suffixes used
in autolinking mode? If so, maybe the solution is to just adjust
the autolinking in Linux appropriately. Sorry if I'm missing
something obvious here --I'm sure I am :)

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo