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

From: Angus Leeming (angus.leeming_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-18 04:13:52

John Maddock wrote:

>>> 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".

Thanks, John.
Angus