"E. Gladyshev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Bohdan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you mean your threads snipped: Yes i've seen it. > > IMO it is more complicated and YES it has compile > > time problems, unless you put traits implementation > > in cpp files and move #include <OS headers> to > > cpp files, but in this case you have > > Yes, it was my suggestion. I have put traits > implemenations in cpp file in my proposal. #include > <OS headers> are in cpp files as well. Sorry if my > description was not clear. I hope you agree that in > this case, there are not any performance issues? > > > link-to-correct-library problems again. > > We have it anyway. My solution didn't claim to resolve > it completely, did it? However if I use thread_core.h > directly and provide my own trait (my toy OS), it > resolves the link-to-correct-library problems > automatically, does it?
Not really. Example: Link to static or dynamic (i mean import lib) thread library problem. This decision can be made only by linker option or by #pragma comment. IMHO, traits can't help here. <snip> > Win32 has really different thread models. I have > mentioned it several times in my posts. They have > normal threads and fibers, do they? > Ah ... sorry i've missed this point. AFAIK fibers are present only on particular OSes. If i don't mind they are supported for all windows starting from win2k. This means that they are not portable to other OSes and boost::thread has nothing to do with them. If i don't mind boost main objective is portability. Anyway, if your implementation can't fix link-to-correct-library problems ... than what we are discussing ? :) I was thinking that THIS was discussion subject. Am i wrong ? regards, bohdan _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
