Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-12 18:20:07

It is really difficult to know where the changes need to be done. There are
a number of tests in the Boost header files and source files for Borland
version numbers 0x560, 0x561, and 0x562 but none of these are extended to
cover 0x564. I would think that the library developers where these tests are
being made would attempt to see whether or not these tests also need to be
applied to 0x564 or not. But I don't think most Boost library developers
even care about this anymore, unfortunately. I hope I am wrong about this.

Russell Hind wrote:
> AFAICT, there are places this needs changing so as you come accross
> them, I would just post to this group so someone with access can
> change
> it in the CVS for the next release.
> Maybe a __BORLANDC__LATEST could be defined in the compiler config
> headers rather than embedding version numbers all over the place (I
> don't know how many places 0x56x is used explicitly, so this may not
> be necessary)
> Cheers
> Russell
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> I have noticed that the 1.30 release does not seem to be aware of
>> the SP4 update to BCB6 and am wondering if anybody has tracked
>> changes that need to be made to 1.30 because of this release. In
>> particular the __BORLANDC__ number for the SP4 release is 0x564 and
>> I have noticed a number of files where tests were being made against
>> __BORLANDC__ numbers of 0x560 ( the original BCB6 release ), 0x561 (
>> BCB6 SP1 I believe ), and even 0x562 ( BCB6 SP2 I believe ). Of
>> course a number of these tests were <=, <, >=, or > comparisons and
>> I am wondering if I have to change any of these in my own private
>> copy of Boost 1.30 in order to work correctly with BCB6 SP4, and
>> what changes need to be made.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at