From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-07 06:47:10
> I'm still not sure that BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG is the right macro to
> workarounds are enabled or not, but if John agrees then I'm happy with it.
> Regardless of what macro determines which BOOST_WORKAROUND is used, I like
> the above definition (+ dumb compiler workarounds).
OK let me try and explain what I had in mind when those macros were
BOOST_NO_XXX_CONFIG: disables automatic configuration of
compiler/stdlib/platform, generally used in conjunction with a customised
boost/config/user.hpp to prevent dependencies on the config system. Should
*not* disable compiler workarounds.
BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG: defined when the user is testing a new compiler version
(one newer than boosts automatic config is aware of, and which may or may
not require configuration), should disable compiler specific fixes only if
the compiler version is greater than the last version we've tested.
Remember these were designed for users, not compiler vendors.
Maybe we need something new for those folks: something like
BOOST_NO_WORKAROUNDS or whatever, that disables all compiler workarounds?
To keep things centralised BOOST_NO_WORKAROUNDS should be defined by the
compiler config when the compilers version is greater than the last known
version and BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG is set, then boost workaround-code need only
check for the presence of BOOST_NO_WORKAROUNDS or whatever in addition to
the compiler version.
How does this sound?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk