Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 13:35:36

From: Jonathan Wakely <cow_at_[hidden]>
> 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:
> > > 
> > > 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.

What's to stop any compiler from using a 3 digit version number
sometime in the future?  Yes, GCC has moved on to 4.x, so there's
no 3.x version even close to that, and there aren't likely to be
(m)any more 2.x releases, but if you are going to choose a
convention, it ought to account for forseeable problems, right?

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;