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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-13 17:07:26

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

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
>> > In other words, there are a lot of possibilities.  Consider my other
> list
>> > bogus.
>>
>> Unfortunately I like all of the above except the last one.  I'd even
>> like the last one, perhaps best of all, if it were:
>>
>>      BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (?) <= 0x530)
>>
>> So I think I'll have to ask other people to weigh in here.  Do you
>> have any preferences, anyone?
>
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (!) <= 0x530)

Why that one?  Isn't this getting a little obscure?

Does anybody else care how this turns out?

In the meantime, Paul, why don't you go ahead and implement your
suggestion in boost/detail/workaround.hpp, and we'll take it from
there.

-Dave

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