Indeed, Rob's right and because the lack of other boost-usage so we wanted to keep it simple.
Go ahead and make the changes to real mutex'es... ;) //Markus On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:29 -0700, Rob Savoye wrote: > strk wrote: > > > The dark side is that *real* mutexes require the boost > > thread lib, whereas the *lightweighted* ones only needed > > headers. No big deal though as the autoconf scripts already > > check for it, so just add BOOST_LIBS to the Makefile.am > > when you use boost threads. > > I thought the main reason lightweight threads got used was because at > that time, Gnash's configure code wasn't finding the library. This got > fixed though, and as far as I can tell, it works fine. So I agree, we > should use "real" mutexes. There are other Boost things we will want to > be using, like date-time, etc.. so we might as well start using Boost in > it's full glory. :-) > > While we're at it, there is a bunch of usages of Pthreads mutexes and > threads that should probably be changed. > > - rob - > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnash-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
