Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 16:47:42

David Abrahams wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> Do you know how to portably generate a warning with the preprocessor?
> 

No idea, but if there isn't there is still the option to trigger an error 
condition instead.

> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> What problem are we currently having that would be solved by this
> suggestion, even if you could implement it (which I don't believe is
> possible, at least not the way you've got it currently formulated)?
> 

The thread on making Boost.Regex compile on VisualC-embedded (1) and the latest 
patch I posted (2) made me to think in this direction:

(1) Say we have support for version one and version three, defining 
BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS can't help us for porting/updating to/for 
version two.

(2) I would have liked to express: "The highest version of this compiler I have 
does not require the workaround the second highest version I have does. I suspect 
a compiler with a greater version number to need the workaround again, though."

However, it's overly important: things work the way they are and I really don't 
want to waste your time :-).

Regards,

Tobias