Re: [boost] [build] request for modification.

From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-05 19:40:42

On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:26 PM [GMT+1=CET],
Ronald Garcia <garcia_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:58 PM [GMT+1=CET],
> > Ronald Garcia <garcia_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Rene Rivera wrote:
> > >
> > > > [2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to request the addition of the -ansi flag to the
> > > > > [ ... ]
> >
> > It is our usual policy to run in "most conforming, plus extensions
mode".
> > IOW, extensions like long long and platform-specific capabilities like
> > __cdecl are typically enabled when they're available.
> >
> > What does -ansi add/remove from the capabilities of Intel C++?
> >
>
> I'm afraid I don't know all of the details, but I was specifically
> interested in it's noticing the use of values from template-dependent base
> classes.  A little while ago, there was some discussion of
> bugs in multi_array related to this issue.  I discovered then that of the
> compilers I currently use, icc with the "-ansi" flag was the only one that
> detected this error.  I (hopefully!) fixed those bugs, which are in a
> sense resulting from compiler extensions (i.e. the EDG front-end can be
> smart enough to dive into dependent base classes to find info).
>
> I'm not sure what your thoughts on this "feature" wrt Boost.Build is.
> Perhaps Boost.Build could use a flag marking certain levels of strictness.
> Were that the case, the Boost regression test system could enforce a
> higher level of strictness than vanilla Boost.Build....or we could leave
> it as is and I could just ignore future bug reports ;-).

I think that if all the flag does is to cause errors on incorrect code, we
should just add it and forget about options.  However, if it disables
certain language extensions like long long that are not likely to be used
unintentionally, we should think twice.

In short, you need to find out "all of the details."  I'm sure it's
documented in some publicly-accessible place.  You're the one asking for the
change, so please do just a little bit of legwork ;-)

Thanks,
Dave

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com