Re: [boost] Re: [Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 19:35:19

"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
>> Errors are not a good response here, unless of course that's done
>> purely as an option.
>
> I was under the impression that causing errors and/or warnings was so
> developers could be "reminded" of some type of hack for some compiler.  The
> macro could be conditionally be defined based on whether or not you want
> those notifications.  Issuing a warning or error on a user's system is
> pointless (IMHO) unless a new release no longer supports the "hack."  In
> which case, they'd get compile-time errors anyway.
>

So, should we have another macro:

    BOOST_WORKAROUND_CURRENT(__SUNPRO_CC, 0x530)

??

or, can you find a way to make:

    BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, BOOST_CURRENT_VERSION(0x530))

work?

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution