Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 06:44:03

Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> 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 :-).
> 

Hmm... The irony wasn't intended I just forgot to write the "not".
Should read "it's not overly important".

Regards,

Tobias