Re: [boost] Should we still be testing GCC 2.95.3?

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-10 08:57:01

AlisdairM wrote:
> Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> 
> 
>>Maciej Sobczak <prog_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>Having said that and being still completely serious, I'd drop
>>>support for 2.95 and for everything else (VC++6.0, others?) 
>>
>>BCB ? 
> 
> 
> Just released a new version in the last few weeks, and from initial
> tests is not significantly improved in its performance on Boost
> regression tests (although there ARE significant bug fixes in this
> compiler - Boost tests simply did not stress those cases)
> 
> I was going to submit the BCB2006 patches last week, but suffered a
> hardware failure on my test box - so will be without PC for a week or
> so while it is mailed away for repair.
> 
> I would be quite upset if library authors stopped accepting workarounds
> to support this compiler if I submit them - I have no problems with
> library authors waiting for BCB users to submit patches, rather than
> researching them themselves.
> 
> If it was easy to move to a more conforming compiler I suspect a lot of
> Borland customers would already have done so (many of those who could,
> have)  These customers are not in the same position as VC6 or GCC2.95
> users, where the vendor has already delivered several generations of
> significantly more conforming compilers - we ARE using the latest and
> greatest Borland offering, and are still pressuring the company over
> commitments to a better compiler.  Borland have finally woken up to BCB
> again after a long rest focussing in different directions, and it would
> be something of a disaster for us (Borland customers) if Boost were to
> drop support now.
> 
> I would like a cleaner Boost codebase without workarounds, no doubt.
> But until we are talking about removing the clutter from all libraries
> (and I suspect the 80/20 rule applies - 80% of workarounds are for the
> 20% of broken compilers you want to stop supporting) I will fight for
> BCB to continue being supported - as we are already paying for the
> pollution in the codebase already.

I am not trying to get Boost to not support BCB, since I have used it 
significantly in the past and am using its prior release, BCB6, 
currently on a project on which I am working but...

1) I submitted a number of compiler bug reports in Borland's bug 
tracking system circa late 2002, and one even in 2000, many of which 
were taken from Boost's reports and verified by myself. I provided test 
code to show the bugs in the compiler.

2) Very few of these have been fixed in the latest release of their 
compiler, while a great many still remain, are supposedly still open and 
being "investigated" still over 3 years later.

This shows to me, unfortunately, that Borland is still not serious about 
fixing compiler bugs despite all of the promotion over the latest 
release of their product, in which they have upgraded the user interface 
to the IDE significantly from all reports. I even mentioned on their NGs 
that one of the reasons that fixing these bugs is so important is that 
many of the Boost developers no longer want to support the compiler in 
their implementations, via workarounds, if Borland is not willing to fix 
their bugs. Admittedly Borland employees themselves rarely respond on 
their NGs, but the responses to their not fixing these bugs after so 
many years appeared to be a big yawn from other developers and TeamB 
supporters on those same NGs. So while I have always been a supporter of 
Borland in the past I do not see that they are serious about fixing 
their compiler bugs, or even consider it important to do so.