troy d. straszheim wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: >> 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*) > > By 'drop' do you mean 'make non-default'? The ability to configure > mangling is in our cmake already, I think all you need here is sensible > defaults.
okay, sure. 'make non-default' -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
