From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 22:03:19
>>>> Didn't we decide to drop ancient compilers?
>>> Not yet, but we never officially defined what it means to support a
>>> compiler either.
>> Well, lets consider this a first big step in this direction. If we dont
>> this step at some point we will be stack where we are forever.
> I can feel your pain but Boost.Test is probably the least suitable
> library to make any steps in this direction. At least for those parts
> that involve the boost regression testing. AFAICS we need to be able to
> run regression tests on VC6 for the foreseeable future.
Do we? I do not see any regression runs for this compiler for about a year
now ( I think)
>>> There is certainly a growing feeling their time has come, but no
>>> definitive list yet.
>> I have this feeling for several releases now. 7.1 may soon become
> I strongly disagree with this.
Not that I insist, but: why?
>> I do not see any reason to still support 6.5.
> Well, what about: It is widely used?
Is it? And I believe it's secondary point here. Anyone stuck with old
compiler could use 1.33. release
>> And if I will have time before the end of release cycle I will remove
>> workarounds either.
> Again I'd like to ask you to not make any changes that impair our
> ability to do regression testing on 2.95
Pre 3.0 gcc is the source of huge amount of clumsy workarounds. We should
get away from it ASAP.