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

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 20:07:00

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>

> > 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?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  You mean overloading "BOOST_WORKAROUND" to
cause an error (or warning) if you use "BOOST_CURRENT_VERSION"?  That's no
problem at all.

Paul Mensonides