From: Iain K. Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-22 09:12:06
On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 13:20, David Abrahams wrote:
> Jarl Friis <jarl_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> All true. Unfortunately, 2.96 was released by RedHat with one popular
> >> version of Linux, which makes it (in many peoples' eyes) an important
> >> compiler to support anyway.
> > I will in line with the announcement suggest that any support needed
> > for or related to this particular gcc version should be redirected to
> > the supplier of the compiler (i.e. redhat).
> That's a very nice way to avoid extra work for Boost library
> developers which they shouldn't have to do in the first place, but
> since RedHat isn't actually going to do anything for users, leaves
> them in the cold.
I thought that the general advice on most open source lists was to avoid
this compiler like the plague. I believe that this has also been the
advice on boost in the past. I don't think any boost libraries
explicitly support 2.96 and I can't see any regressions being run for
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk