Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 09:31:38

David Abrahams wrote:
> So, can you spell out what that means?  When I define
> BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS, what would the behavior be?
> 

Warn if the same compiler is in use and BOOST_TESTED does not match.

On second thought the proposed interface is still too complicated and not exactly 
perfect yet. However, I'll try to explain why I think that something in this 
direction could be quite useful:

The current BOOST_TESTED_AT assumes that a higher version number of a compiler 
implies a later release date or integration with Boost. Looking at e.g. 
VisualC-embedded or Borland BuilderX/Kylix it isn't necessarily the case.
Further, patch submitters often have more than one version of a particular 
compiler around so we could allow to express that a workaround has e.g. been 
tested with version two and three and version three does not require the workaround.

If BOOST_DETECT_UNTESTED_WORKAROUNDS is defined we would get a warning for 
compiler versions that have not been explicitly marked as tested.
So if Boost is ported to a new version of a compiler we'll see all the workarounds 
in question,  regardless whether the version number is the highest around.
For regression testing (and the officially supported compilers respectively) we'ld 
always want to define that macro so insufficient testing of a fresh patch shows up 
in the regression summary.

Regards,

Tobias