Re: [boost] Re: Re: boost::spirit in 1.30.2 and bcc 5.6.4

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-10 02:25:53

Firingme <firingme_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]>
> ??????:00b301c38eeb$2f16fbc0$64646464_at_godzilla...

>> Does that prove that VC7.1 is worse? It's trully sad that people jump
>> to the conclusion that a compiler is better by virtue of it being able to
>> compile this or that library without considering how much gunk was written
>> to workaround various compiler quirks to make them happy.
> The Problem is not VC7.0  "being able to compile this or that library
> without
>  considering how much gunk was written".

>  C1001 Error is
> 
> ---------Compiler Internal Error---------
> 
> that says if you receive a C1001 error, you can't do anything to work around
> it, 

Oh yes you can! Library writers workaround ICEs everytime! It's just
tedious and a royal pain in the rear.

> and I also
> think that it express that the Compiler is not stablity enough !

Are you saying that VC7 is more stable than VC7.1? Wow, that's new!
Try to count the number of workarounds for VC6, VC7 and VC7.1
in a modern library such as, say, MPL, and you'll be surprised.

> As far as I know, there have been many people have send there complain to MS
> with this *fatal* BUG !

VC6 and VC7 ICEs like crazy! Luckily, for you, library writers spend countless 
hours finding workarounds to these nasty ICEs. 

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net