From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-02 08:54:12
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> In discussions with the Intel folks about their spoofing of __GNUC__
>> on Linux, Clark Nelson pointed out that Boost code should be much
>> more careful about use of any predefined compiler identification
>> macro, because there is nothing to prevent any compiler in the future
>> predefining compiler identification macros used by other compilers.
>> Scary as it is, he is right AFAICS.
>> To be consistent and to prevent being blindsided in the future by
>> other compilers deciding to spoof one another's macros, perhaps we
>> should define BOOST_x, where x is the compiler name, for every
>> compiler we have a config for. And then pointing out the problem in
>> our lib guide for developers.
> Or perhaps we should do nothing unless our tests indicate a problem or we
> get a bug report. Life is too short.
I think I favor the former, because it will allow us to write the
BOOST_WORKAROUND macro in such a way as to avoid warnings. Otherwise,
trying to track down a problem on a particular compiler could be a
nightmare for anyone who isn't aware of all the spoofs that are in
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk