Boost logo

Boost :

From: Giovanni Bajo (giovannibajo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-19 06:06:15

Daryle Walker wrote:

> So GCC 3.4 is still a beta? I don't think that changes for it should
> be added until it's final. For all we know, the final version of GCC
> 3.4 could have notable differences than the beta. So adjusting for
> the beta would could lead to TWO adjustments overall, and the users still get
> warnings.

Not that much. GCC 3.4.0 has already branched for release, so it will now get
only fixes to stabilize the release (which means fixing regressions only). I
don't expect changes that would affect the configuration in a significant way.

> We have that "don't make final judgments based on the beta" rule for a
> reason. (Were you one of the guys who proposed it?) Resist the urge
> to make beta-instigated changes, even if it "seems" minor and
> most-likely-unchanging.

Is there a committed config file for GCC 3.4.0? I can give it a look. For stuff
like "BOOST_SUPPORT_THIS" or "BOOST_THAT_IS_BROKEN" I don't expect any change
to be needed. Which other changes are you expecting?

Besides, GCC 3.4.0 is much more standard conforming that any previous GCC
version (especially due to a brand new C++ parser), so checking Boost
regressions can help uncovering also Boost bugs. For instance, I just picked up
one of out of them, and it appears to be a Boost bug
(boost/numeric/ublas/banded.hpp is missing a typename at line 1032 - sorry I
can't cvs diff right now).

Giovanni Bajo

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at