Re: [boost] [Release 1.34] Supported Compilers

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 22:32:38

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:48:10 -0800, Thomas Witt wrote
> Hi,
> 
> several recent posts touched the issue of deprecating compilers in 
> the next release.
> 
> Given the fact that we don't even seem to know what deprecating 
> means I would like to propose the following:
> 
> Compiler support should be phased out instead of dropped. I see 
> three different stages here.
> 
> Fully Supported
> ---------------
> 
> Libraries should make an effort to support these compilers. 
> Regressions in support version to version should be avoided. (Weasel 
> wording intended). Full regression testing.
> 
> Marked Deprecated
> -----------------
> 
> No effort is required to support these compilers in new 
> functionality. Version to version regressions are accepted after the 
> first version that marked these compilers as deprecated. Full 
> regression testing (if resources are available). One key idea here 
> is to give the user a good idea on the level of available 
> functionality until a toolset reaches the "Unsupported" stage.
> 
> Unsupported
> -----------
> 
> No regression testing is done. (Library authors might still support 
> these toolsets for their libraries on a case by case basis.)
> 
> AFAICS there seems to be strong support for moving gcc-2.95 and vc6 
> to "Marked Deprecated" and somebody needs to fight Alisdair over 
> Borland 
> (volunteers? any?).
> 
> Comments
> 
> Thomas

I like your breakdown although we might need another category like
'experimental' to describe newer compilers that are partially supported or
might be supported in the future -- although maybe it's the same as unsupported.

Anyway, here's how I'd categorize the current set of compilers on the
regression page:

Supported;
vc7.1 
vc8.x 
intel9_x 
cw9_4 
gcc3.x 
gcc4.x 
tru64cxx71-xx 

Deprecated:
intel8_x
tru64cxx65-xx

Unsupported:
borland 5_6_x
cw8_x
dmc 
gcc2.95.x 
sunpro 
vc6 
vc7 

I know -- that's a pretty aggressive cut in supported compilers, but I think
it's time to let boost developers focus on new libraries instead of porting.  

Jeff