Re: [boost] Re: Re: [config] BOOST_GCC

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-12 10:54:05

>> I think I would have preferred a more consistent numbering system - a bit 
>> like BOOST_VERSION maybe:
>>
>> #define BOOST_GCC (__GNUC__*10000 + __GNUC_MINOR__ * 100 + 
>> __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__)
>
> Look reasonable
>
>> Of course even that can in theory go wrong, but it does make checks 
>> easier to read (because of greater consistency between gcc 2 and 3):
>>
>> #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_GCC, <= 29500)
>> #else BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_GCC <= 30400)
>> // etc....
>>
>> Any other thoughts?
>
> Do you want me to check this in?

If you're happy with it, then yes please do go ahead, I think it's a little 
better than the original scheme.

> P.S. While we are at it shouldn't we make sure we have single recognizable 
> macro for each compiler we support (using above convention or the natural 
> one supplied by compiler):
>
> BOOST_BORLAND
> BOOST_CAMEAU
> ...
> BOOST_VACPP
> BOOST_MSVC

Provided the compiler uses just one macro to identify itself I don't think 
we need to go that far just yet.  Here's hoping anyway...

John.