RE: [boost] Re: Acknowledging corporate support?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-13 14:53:44

At 03:01 PM 4/13/2001, Thompson, Todd L wrote:

 >...
 >
 >I think it would be helpful in the compiler table if there was an
 >indication if a workaround was required or not.

That is an interesting idea, but hard to do without human analysis.

It might be possible to run the table normally, then run it with a version 
of boost/config.hpp that claimed compliance for all compilers, then look at 
the differences.  But that wouldn't detect individual tests which contained 
workarounds for specific compilers.

Just looking at boost/config.hpp is interesting, but also misleading in 
that a lot of effort goes into compilers popular with Boost developers, but 
other compilers hardly get mentioned at all.  So boost/config.hpp only 
hints at compliance.

Is it just that Boost developers are a biased sample?  Surely someone is 
interested in C++ for traditional mainframes?  I had a client a few years 
ago that used C++ for embedded systems, so I know they exist, but Boost 
testing doesn't seem to be attracting them either.  Drifting off topic, but 
it would be a nice contribution to Boost if someone wanted to run the tests 
on something other that Windows/Linux/Unix-like systems.

--Beman