Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [boost] Review: Config system

Expand Messages
  • Jens Maurer
    ... Agreed, and thanks to Aleksey for the user s perspective. Except that I like BOOST_STRICT better (see other mails on the subject). Jens Maurer
    Message 1 of 25 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      David Abrahams wrote:
      > The solution seems obvious to me: we specify a preprocessor
      > symbol which, when #defined, makes the appropriate assumption for
      > developers... shall we say, BOOST_DEVELOPER?

      Agreed, and thanks to Aleksey for the user's perspective.
      Except that I like BOOST_STRICT better (see other mails on the subject).

      Jens Maurer
    • Douglas Gregor
      ... It would be useful in this case if we had macros to emulate a compiler on a different compiler. Assuming we have a compiler that does not require any
      Message 2 of 25 , Sep 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Friday 31 August 2001 10:15, you wrote:
        > Simply put, some workarounds under BOOST_MSVC weren't written expecting
        > a conforming compiler from Microsoft. It's usually trivial to fix, but
        > it might not work either way with a new version of the compiler.

        It would be useful in this case if we had macros to emulate a compiler on a
        different compiler. Assuming we have a compiler that does not require any
        workarounds (we almost do), it would be great if we could run the regression
        tests through that compiler but emulate one of the other compilers to ensure
        that we haven't used a bug to our advantage. I do this with Boost.Function,
        so even if the old workarounds are used on a new version there shouldn't be a
        new failure (unless it's a new bug).

        > How about using #error instead? The BOOST user is made very aware they
        > are entering uncharted territory.

        It's a pity that #warning is non-standard :(. I don't see any reason to halt
        compilation just because the user has a newer compiler. If we make sure that
        workaround code is still conforming code, it's reasonable to be pessimistic
        about new releases. We can always enable BOOST_STRICT to test out the
        capabilities of a new version without forcing the user to do that work for us.

        Doug
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.