From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 03:51:40
Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> Careful, here -- they did! Well, that is one with a higher version
> number ;-)
> Latest official BCC shipped with BuilderX:
> BORLANDC == 0x565
Thanks, had not realised they increased the version number of the
compiler, I was only aware of linker fixes.
> Latest Builder6 upgrade pack:
> BORLANDC == 0x564
OK, now we're in agreement <g>
> Kylix (didn't verify it myself - source: Boost.Config):
> BORLANDC == 0x570
Oops, keep forgetting about that one!
Trouble is, no-one appears to be testing with it, or at least, it does
not show on the Boost regression test lists.
I would be very reluctant to use BOOST_TESTED_AT with a higher version
than was actually tested!!!
IIUC, the workaround is still applied when using BOOST_TESTED_AT,
regardless of compiler version. However, if you #define
BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS you will get a warning for every
BOOST_TESTED_AT which gives a lower version, so that you can turn it
into a more definite <= test one the bug is fixed, or raise the version
number to recognise the latest testing.
> 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).
0x600 seems to be Borland's version series for the EDG-front end they
were experimenting with. As I understand, those experiments are on
hold now, so we may see future compilers with versions > 0x565 and <
Remember the EDG front end was only ever a preview, not a supported,
released product. It does make life tough library writers though!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk