From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-04 13:00:49
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Maddock
>
> Sohail Somani wrote:
> > Any opinions on this? It is a patch against 1.33.1. It is
> meant to be
> > non-intrusive: nothing should change unless you want it to. The idea
> > is
> > that when building boost threads, you require language
> extensions via
> > your silence on BOOST_NO_REQUIRE_LANGUAGE_EXTENSIONS but if you are
> > not building boost threads, you don't need language extensions. The
> > idea is
> > that BOOST_DISABLE_WIN32 does not need to be defined if language
> > extensions are not needed.
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback towards a possible patch. I am
> > currently running the boost thread tests and hoping that they don't
> > fail ;) If all
> > goes well, I will rebuild the rest of boost as well and run tests
> > there.
>
> Unfortunately that's going to break all kinds of things: Regex and
> Boost.Test almost for sure. I suggest you do a grep for
> BOOST_DISABLE_WIN32
> and BOOST_HAS_THREADS: you will find their use ubiquitous
> throughout Boost.
Thanks for your reply John. I've made some modifications to the patch
which I have uploaded to the tracker @ http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhndak
After I made the patch, I ran all the boost tests and nothing went
wrong. Are you expecting silent failures?
Note that the patch at the URL is a bit different than the one I posted
originally (after I did some real testing!)
Are you more for something boost thread specific? I don't know but imho
the libraries should differentiate between config requirements when
building vs when using.
Thanks again!
Sohail