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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk