Re: [boost] BOOST_WORKAROUND and g++ -Wundef

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-17 11:07:58

>> One final question: it appears that many (most?) tests ignore the
>> existence of BOOST_TESTED_AT(X). Is there a real reason for doing so,
>> or is it simply that '<= 1300' is less typing than
>> BOOST_TESTED_AT(1300)? Would you like me to extend the script to use
>> BOOST_TESTED_AT(X) consistently?

BOOST_TESTED_AT(1300) and <= 1300 aren't the same thing: the first says: "We 
know this bug was present in version 1300, and probably *in newer versions 
as well* until we know otherwise", the second says "only in versions prior 
to 1300".

John.