From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-17 16:17:57
"Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> skrev i meddelandet
> John Maddock wrote:
>> However do we really want to define macros for more than one
>> compiler at
>> once? The whole reason for introducing BOOST_MSVC was because
>> compilers were pretending to be msvc.
> I'll take your word for it :-) I didn't find a mention of that in
> list searches I did. But it seems logical that is the reason we
> have that macro. And it does make sense in the Intel case that we
> want to treat it as just one compiler. I suspect that for compilers
> Intel, which are front ends to others, we will want some other
> define to
> say what the target compiler is.
But the Intel compilers aren't front ends, they are chameleons. To be
a replacement for another compiler, it has to be able to behave like
the one it is replacing. That means behave like gcc on Linux, and
behave like MSVC on Windows, including bugs, predefined macros, and
everything. That's why it is so hard to tell them apart!
The Comeau compiler is a front end, using a native compiler as its
code generator. The Intel compiler is not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk