From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-22 10:44:35
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Doesn't Walter update DMC++ quite often?
> Yes, but there are lots of bugs on his list ;-)
>> Would it be better to just
>> report bugs to him and wait for the fixes?
> Walter seems to be very conscientious about bug reports, but I don't
> think you can assume that if you report a bug it will be fixed in a
> matter of weeks.
>> I have no major objection
>> to the patches; I'm just slightly concerned about crufting up the
>> codebase to add support for a previously unsupported compiler if it
>> will happen without changes in a few weeks anyway.
> I'd like to see boost support DMC soon. IMO, the best way to motivate
> Walter to fix the bugs which most affect boost is to run and publish
> the regression tests for DMC.
But if we cover all the bugs up with workarounds he'll never see any
> (I have a feeling I'm about to be asked
> to volunteer :-) ) I tend to think he'll be more motivated if DMC
> passes, say, 42% of the tests than if it passes 0-5%. In the latter
> case, judging by his reaction when preprocessor problems were reported
> to him earlier this year, I think he might conclude that the problems
> must be with boost. (After all, DMC can't be *that* bad.)
Wow, that's pretty arrogant. If he has that attitude, Boost test
failure reports aren't going to make any difference.
> So I'd like to see patches committed if they give substantial parts
> of boost some hope of compiling with DMC.
> But this is idle speculation.
Hum. Maybe you should ask Walter what he's going to be responsive to.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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