From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-15 14:14:50
David Abrahams wrote:
> a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe
> b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when
> the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case.
I missed (well forgot actually) that the compiler was non-comforming in that
mode, I guess it's not quite non-conforming enough to cause problems for
most people, although I agree that the performance issue is a very real one.
The suggestion to provide a Boost.Build option for this sounds like the best
approach though? Anyone want to provide a patch?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk