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
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
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk