From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 16:35:41
David Abrahams wrote:
> Russell Hind <rhind_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Yes, but we have a very functional set of libraries in boost-1.30.2
>>and boost-1.31.0 so why not say older compilers are stuck to using
>>these versions of boost? We're not saying they can't use boost, just
>>not the latest version?
> Might be a good idea. I think I'd like to continue to support vc6 at
> least on the 1.31.x branch, particularly because last-minute changes
> in the graph library broke Boost.Python on vc6 for 1.31.0
> What would we do about Borland, which is in some ways more broken than
> vc6? They don't ship a compiler I wouldn't consider broken. What
> about GCC 2.9Xes, which are standard equipment on some widely-used
> Linux distros? Way less broken than either of those two compilers,
> but still way out-of-date...
I think most distros finally switched to gcc 3.
I also think dropping gcc 2.9x support would hit
fewer developers than dropping VC6 support (mostly
due to the fact that gcc 3 has been around for
some time). However, I didn't conduct a survey.
I think it would be reasonable not to support
gcc 2.9x in future Boost releases.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk