From: John (EBo) David (ebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-13 10:40:01
Thomas Matelich wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
> > Jens,
> > >Should we try to hack around missing <cXXX> headers?
> > >(I don't think so.)
> > Can we use STLPort on those platforms - if so that would solve the problem
> > wouldn't it?
> > - John.
> On HPUX I have the <cXXX> headers, but not the <XXXstream> headers. I've
> been thinking about suggesting hacking that (for the regression tests). And
> while STLPort is supposed to be supported on this platform, I have never
> gotten it to work.
Well... I'm probably going to get flamed for the suggestion... But as
the issue is supporting non-complient compilers until they become
compliant, we *could* set up a include directory of these hacks in
This allows those of us who have trouble with one platform or another to
share our hack fixes without having to #define the actual boost header
files to death with stuff that we would all rather do without and hope
that the compiler maintainers finally get around to fixing...
If this is amenable to people I would suggest a naming convention that
somehow combines the OS and the specific compiler...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk