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

From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-06 12:48:46

From: "Ronald Garcia" <garcia_at_[hidden]>

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > > > > [ ... ]
> > > >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> It looks like the intel compiler still supports long long when used with
> the -ansi option.  I searched around for good specs, but could find no
> definitive outline of what other restrictions it adds. So at least as far
> as long long is concerned, it's good to go.

OK, thanks.  Why don't you:

a. make a copy of the current regression results for Intel
b. modify the toolset to add -ansi
c. compare the results and see if any new errors crop up which shouldn't be
there.

??

If all of that works out, you can check in the toolset mod.

Thanks,
Dave

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