Re: [boost] Permanently retire VC++ 6?

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"
> >>>>compilers.
> >>
> >>>I think it is too soon to drop VC 7.1 from the list of "release"
> >>>compilers.
> >>
> >>I doubt that 7.1 would ever be dropped, as it's too close to conforming 
>and
> >>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 
supported list.

- Reece