[boost] Re: true64cxx and toupper

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-12 07:32:47

David Abrahams wrote:

> Markus Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>>What would you consider the correct way then? IMO we have three options.
>>
>>1. Only use "-std strict_ansi". This means that the C header files
>>   (#include <c...>) included by boost libraries only define exactly
>>   those names specified in the C++ standard and nothing else. This
>>   would means changes to at least test, fs, regex and probably more
>>   libs. OTOH, this would mean that those libs are more conforming
>>   afterwards.
>>
>>Here is the output of a configure run with the options "-pthread
>>-tlocal -std strict_ansi":
>>
>>#define BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
>>#define BOOST_HAS_UNISTD_H
>>#define BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD
>>#define BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS
>>#define BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE
>>#define BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_DELAY_NP
>>#define BOOST_HAS_PARTIAL_STD_ALLOCATOR
>>#define BOOST_HAS_NRVO
>>#define BOOST_HAS_NL_TYPES_H
>>#define BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
>>#define BOOST_HAS_GETTIMEOFDAY
>>#define BOOST_HAS_DIRENT_H
>>
>>(No sigaction (XSH4.0), no nanosleep (P1003.1b), and no
>>clock_gettime(P1003.1b), to get those you have to define _XOPEN_SOURCE
>>or _POSIX_SOURCE or some such.)
> 
> IMO this is the right thing to do, including making those #defines as
> neccessary.

Should these defines be done by the user when compiling boost or by 
boost itself, therefore enforcing a particular value for them?

Markus