RE: [boost] Re: Using ggcl with Sun CC-6.0 (Forte)

From: Mishkin, Nat (mishkin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-02 08:29:57

Ah, I guess I should have made clear that despite my slashing and burning, I
still got compilation errors.  The Solaris compiler report that Beman
pointed me at in another reply to my post also indicates problems with this
compiler, although that report looks like it's saying it compiled but didn't
_run_ correctly.  The number of failures shown in the report for _all_ the
different compilers on Solaris makes for pretty depressing reading.  

It looks like I'll need to considerably limit my ambitions as far as use of
modern C++ capabilities if I want to have a portable application.  (Sigh.
Didn't this language get standardized a fairly long time ago?  I guess all
the compiler folks are abandoning the antique languages like C++ and are off
working on Java or C# :-)

Thanks for your help.

                -- Nat

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Siek [mailto:jsiek_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:22 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Using ggcl with Sun CC-6.0 (Forte)

Hi Nat,

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 mishkin_at_[hidden] wrote:
mishki> 
mishki> I'm wondering whether anyone has made any additional progress with 
mishki> the new Sun compiler.  I'm considering using ggcl but I need it to 
mishki> work on Solaris, preferably with the Sun compiler.  I took a witless

mishki> slash-and-burn approach trying to get the the "graph.cpp" example to

mishki> build, -D'ing:
mishki> 
mishki> - BOOST_NO_STD_ITERATOR_TRAITS
mishki> - BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
mishki> - BOOST_NO_HASH
mishki> - BOOST_NO_SLIST

Did you succeed in compiling the graph.cpp example with the above defines?
If so that's a good sign... probably means porting all of the BGL (new
name for ggcl) will not be too bad.

Cheers,
Jeremy