Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 13:51:35

Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: Jonathan Wakely

>> 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?

The ability to accommodate these unlikely scenarios has to be balanced against
usability. If a test for GCC with major version < 3 has to use "3000000,"
chances are good that a test will be misspelled and a needed workaround will not
be applied.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at