From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-15 13:54:13
Russell Hind <rhind_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> My main concern is that code which tests specifically for some BCB6
>> __BORLANDC__ number, such as 0x561, and assumes only this means BCB6, has
>> not been updated to also test for 0x562 and 0x564 when appropriate. But I
>> don't know if this is the case anywhere, which was the reason for my
>> original post.
> This is why I think a __BORLANDC__LATEST could be used. Define it as
> 0x564 now, and if __BORLANDC__ > __BORLANDC__LATEST, then error to
> show that a new version has been released. Then, either
> __BORLANDC__LATEST could just be updated to include the new version,
> or specific patches could be then given specific version numbers if
> the latest patch has fixed the problem.
> Another way is to try and remove completely checks against compiler
> versions in code and put all this checks in compiler config header,
> then when new versions come out, you just update the list for the new
> version in one place. This may be a better solution but will mean a
> lot of #defines in the compiler config headers for non-conforming
It sounds like this is what BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x561), from
<boost/detail/workaround.hpp>, is for.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk