From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 06:47:02
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Stefan Slapeta" <stefan_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> As Dave has already said, there is no way for us to detect which
>>> compiler options the Intel compiler is using, and therefore what
>>> options it supports.
>> What exactly is wrong with
>> #if (defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSV_VER <= 1200) ||
>> BOOST_INTEL_CXX_VERSION < 700 #define BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T
>> (like it was before) in intel.hpp??
> I'm not sure, but I'm unwilling to believe that it works until it has
> been tested with all combinations of intel compilers, MS compiler
> compatibility, dinkumware libs, and command-line/IDE integration.
It works most of the time, and the alternatives do not.
The proper way to do it is to support both BOOST_HAS_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T and
BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T as input, and fall back on autodetection when
neither is defined at toolset level.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk