From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 10:37:24
Edward Diener wrote:
>David Abrahams wrote:
> > "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>Martin Bonner wrote:
> >>>>I do not oppose dropping VC 6 and 7 from the list of "release"
> >>>I think it is too soon to drop VC 7.1 from the list of "release"
> >>I doubt that 7.1 would ever be dropped, as it's too close to conforming
> >>VC 8 has some features that could hinder its acceptance.
> >>>(But VC7.0 could probably go).
> > That sounds great to me. Now what about Borland (wrings hands like
> > Snively Whiplash)? If anything, that's harder to support than vc6 and
> > 7.0!
>I understand you are referring to past BCB compilers but I just want to
>note that Borland is putting out a new release of BCB in case Boost
>becomes interested. The product, part of the BDS 2006 suite, was
>supposed to come out December 1 but has been delayed for approximately a
>month, not a good sign, with the next exact date not given yet.
>Just a heads up in case no one from Boost is paying attention to this in
>the wake of MS's much touted Visual Studio 2005 and VC 8.0.
It may be useful to have 3 levels of support:
* officially supported (e.g. CodeWarrior 9.x, gcc, VC8) - compilers that
Boost is expected to work with;
* not officially supported (e.g. VC6, BCB) - some libraries may work, but
there is no requirement to support these compilers;
* not supported (e.g. OpenWatcom) - these haven't been tested for and do
not have any Boost.Config/workaround magic to support them.
It may also be useful to make Boost.Config issue a warning that compilers
like BCB and VC6 are not officially supported if they are removed from the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk