On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: >> I suggest that the vast majority of users should be using the >> multi-threaded versions; those that truly will only use Boost in >> single-threaded environments and are copying shared_ptrs so often that >> their performance is at risk can flip the right switches to build >> Boost differently. Few people need that freedom, so the rest of the >> users shouldn't pay for it with more complexity. > > OK, agreed. Now do you think that auto-linking makes mangling make > sense on Windows, or should we drop it there, too?
That's a much, much tougher call, because the situation is different on Windows for a couple reasons: - We don't have propert DLL versioning (unless I'm missing something) - At least one major vendor makes it insanely easy to build link-incompatible code (*cough* _SECURE_SCL *cough*) - Doug _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
