Boost logo

Boost :

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-05 12:29:33

David Abrahams wrote:
>"Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > It may be useful to have 3 levels of support:
> > * officially supported (e.g. CodeWarrior 9.x, gcc, VC8) - compilers
> > Boost is expected to work with;
> > * not officially supported (e.g. VC6, BCB) - some libraries may work,
> > there is no requirement to support these compilers;
>Sounds good, but I'd like to know, as a practical matter, what the
>difference between these two is. Less pressure on developers to
>support the 2nd category?

The first would mean that Boost guarantees support for the specified

The second (possibly with a better name) would mean that there is limited
support. That is:
* less pressure (or none for VC6 ;)) on developers to support it (as you
* no requirement to fix regressions for that toolset (although it might be
useful for the users to see the regression results for these compilers so
they know what libraries will work).

> > * not supported (e.g. OpenWatcom) - these haven't been tested for and
> > not have any Boost.Config/workaround magic to support them.
> >
> > It may also be useful to make Boost.Config issue a warning that
> > like BCB and VC6 are not officially supported if they are removed from
> > supported list.
><shiver> Wouldn't people hate us for adding diagnostics?

I don't know. Don't Boost.Python and Boost.Serialize produce
warnings/notifications if they aren't configured properly?

Ok, maybe a diagnostic message is a bad idea :). However, the information
about there not being any (official) support for these compilers should be
visible to someone who is casually scanning the documentation and any
release notes/information.

- Reece

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at