From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-27 17:20:54
Chris Uzdavinis <chris_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> It seems all are pretty close in terms of portability (for the
>> former two I know it and for Kylix it's another guess reading
>> Boost.Config), so testing for below 0x600 is what you want, I guess
>> (and above 0x551, reading the follow-up).
> If the highest released Borland compiler is 0x570, why do you suggest
> testing for "below 0x600"? Rounding up may inadvertantly include
> future compilers that don't need such workarounds.
Our standard practice is to keep the workaround in place for future
versions using BOOST_TESTED_AT(), which tends to ensure that library
code doesn't break when a user gets a new compiler and also gives us a
way to locate all workarounds that can be limited to earlier versions
when a later version comes out.
-- 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