From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-22 11:54:02
"Iain K. Hanson" <iain.hanson_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.Python gets tested against 2.96. I have users who in turn need
to support RH7.1 users.
-- 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