Re: [boost] Re: [Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 22:38:39

"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
>> > I was under the impression that causing errors and/or warnings was so
>> > developers could be "reminded" of some type of hack for some compiler.
> The
>> > macro could be conditionally be defined based on whether or not you want
>> > those notifications.  Issuing a warning or error on a user's system is
>> > pointless (IMHO) unless a new release no longer supports the "hack."  In
>> > which case, they'd get compile-time errors anyway.
>> >
>>
>> So, should we have another macro:
>>
>>     BOOST_WORKAROUND_CURRENT(__SUNPRO_CC, 0x530)
>>
>> ??
>>
>> or, can you find a way to make:
>>
>>     BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, BOOST_CURRENT_VERSION(0x530))
>>
>> work?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here.  You mean overloading
> "BOOST_WORKAROUND" to cause an error (or warning) if you use
> "BOOST_CURRENT_VERSION"?  That's no problem at all.

I mean that

    #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, BOOST_CURRENT_VERSION(0x530))
      whatever
    #endif

would have the effect of 

    #if __SUNPRO_CC != 0
    # if BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS && __SUNPRO_CC > 0x530
    #  error or warning
    # endif
      whatever
    #endif

While keeping the current semantics for normal uses of
BOOST_WORKAROUND

And, BTW, can you show us how to do it?

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution