From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-17 11:15:04
> I already changed the patch number from 3 to 5 digits. So it's now at
> 3 digits for major, 3 for minor, and 5 for patch. Which Hmm, which
> blows up the 32 bit barrier :-( That barrier realistically only
> allows for 3/3/3 at up to 1,000,000,000 (closest decimal round number
> lower than 2^32). So if we want more than 9 digits we'll have to
> figure out some other way. Ideas welcome ;-)
Yes, if you make the patch number 5 digits then you've only got one digit
left for the major number, and we're already at version 9 for MWCW aren't
> OK, I'll adjust accordingly then. Is it OK to then define all the
> compiler, platform, and stdlib macros in suffix.hpp?
Seems the logical place, it always gets included, so it would have to be:
#define BOOST_CXX_ACME 0
>> Taking Intel on Linux as an example, it includes common_edg.hpp
>> which would define BOOST_CXX_EDG, then intel.hpp would define
>> BOOST_CXX_INTEL, I'm not sure whether BOOST_CXX_GCC should be
>> defined as well, but intel.hpp could define it if required.
> Yes, EDG is a special case since it already has a common header where
> the version macro could be defined. But it seems more forward thinking
> to generalize the structure so that we don't have to go adding more
> special cases in the future. And the one thing we *really* want to
> avoid is duplication of the code to define the version macros, by for
> example defining BOOST_CXX_GCC in both intel.hpp and gcc.hpp, as that
> will surely lead to errors.
However do we really want to define macros for more than one compiler at
once? The whole reason for introducing BOOST_MSVC was because other
compilers were pretending to be msvc.
>> Likewise with the platform headers: I don't see the need for the
>> extra headers, the only macro that can be defined in combination
>> with the other appears to be BOOST_PLATFORM_POSIX and presumably
>> that would be defined in the existing posix_features.hpp?
> Again I didn't want to assume it's going to be that way in the future.
> But sure if we think that POSIX is the only platform that will ever be
> defined in addition to all other platforms we can certainly put the
> version definitions into the specific platform headers.
Again, I don't think we should ever have more than one platform macro set,
otherwise any code that's testing for that won't know what to do.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk