Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 10:33:02

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:55:37AM -0400, Rob Stewart wrote:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 
> > Okay, I understand what you're driving at.  I'm not sure if going down
> > this road is worth the trouble, but if it is, I'd rather see a
> > standard system for referring to versions numerically.  So, for
> > example:
> > 
> >         Version   Value
> >         -------   -----
> >         6.0       060000
> >         6.0sp5    060005
> >         7.0       070000
> >         7.1       070100
> >         5.3.4     050304
> >         3.4.3     030403
> >         2.95.3    029503
> 
> You probably need to allow another digit for each field.  95 is
> awfully close to rolling over to three digits.

I think that's why it was chosen, and it's VERY unlikely there'll be any
more GCC 2.x releases.  RedHat shipped a modified GCC with version number
2.96, but I'll bet bread there won't be a 2.100

So if GCC 2.95 is the only version number close to 3 digits, I don't
think you need to worry about running out of digits.

jon