"William E. Kempf" wrote: > > [Michel André] > > Another question i noted that in the current boost CVS the boost.thread > > only builds a dll version of the library and no static ones, in earlier > > release you only needed the dll when using tss? Is it supposed to be > > that way? > > Yes. It vastly simplifies the build process (now that we have a working > DLL implementation), and is the version most users have been asking for > any way. I did expect to get some static about this, so let the debate > begin. ;) Note, however, that it will be a little problematic to continue > with a build process that provides both a forms, and that the > threadmon.dll has been the source of a lot of confusion for users, so > there will have to be very compelling reasons to bring this build type > back.
OK, here's some static!! As you know from an earlier thread I aim to finally investigate boost::thread this week (as a largely drop-in replacement for our compiler vendor-supplied thread library) A static build is important to us, as we have found many support/development issues simply vanish with a static build. We would be very reluctant to move to a system requiring such a .dll, especially if it means using the dynamic RTL with our compiler (as that is where we generally hit the problems above) I am also unsure how a standard proposal might look if we can only say 'the dynamic library version works well, but we have problems with the static' although I have no experience of the committee to be sure. I would give me pause for thought. What problems does the static build bring? Would it be useful for someone who does care about static builds ( thinking of no-one in particular <g> ) to look after the issue? -- AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
