Re: [boost] Config questions for GCC 3.1

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-30 13:59:58

These sure look like bugs to me. Note that John is still on holiday I
think, so we may have to handle this ourselves.

In addition to these problems, I'm having an issue with how we're setting
BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG. When I compile Boost.Python with KCC on OSF, one
translation unit comes out with this macro defined, and another comes out
with it undefined. I'm not yet sure about the causes of this problem.

Also, I recently had to fix up the config for Metrowerks. Our policy had
been to keep non-conformance workarounds for versions we hadn't accounted
for unless BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG was #defined. We handn't accounted for
CWPro7.2 yet (__MWERKS__ == 0x2407), but everything worked because the
neccessary workarounds were essentially the same as the ones for CWPro7.1.
However when we accounted for CWPro8 (__MWERKS__ == 0x3000) we changed
this:

#   if(__MWERKS__ <= 0x2406) || !defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)  // 7.0 & 7.1
#     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
#     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_FUNCTION_SPECIALIZATIONS
#   endif

to this:

#   if(__MWERKS__ <= 0x2406)  // 7.0 & 7.1
#     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
#     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_FUNCTION_SPECIALIZATIONS
#   endif

Which left us broken for 7.2 -- it needed the workarounds. So instead we
should have written:

#   if(__MWERKS__ < 0x3000)  // Pre-8.0
#     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
#     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_FUNCTION_SPECIALIZATIONS
#   endif

Which assumes less knowledge of versions before the one we're accomodating.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>

> Boost version 102900
>      BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES             [no value]
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      BOOST_NO_CWCHAR                          [no value]
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      BOOST_NO_CWCTYPE                         [no value]
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>      BOOST_NO_STD_WSTRING                     [no value]
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Surely those can't be correct?