Re: [boost] [config] Last call for choosing macro names

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-09 07:02:58

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 21:59:15 +0200, "Pavel Vozenilek"
<pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Windows and Linux Intel compilers are quite
>different beasts (one pretending to be VC, the other GCC).

I know. Both pretending to be worse a compiler than itself :-/ But
this is already managed by the config system, isn't it? Compiler and
platform are dealt with orthogonally.

>The planned obsolence of separate macros doesn't
>feel good to me.
>
>
>Rogue Wave STL now lives under name stdcxx
>(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/stdcxx.html)
>
>
>Copenhagen STL (http://www.cphstl.dk/)
>still shows some sign of life.

Yep. How much energy waste. And we don't have a conforming standard
library yet.

>I am not sure whether BOOST_CXX_DEC
>will be recognised after so many name changes.

Suggestion? :)

>Possibly something for Win64 platform
>could be defined.

I didn't get this. Just to be sure we are on the same wavelength, so
far I've only introduced macros for compilers. Also, I'm just
considering compilers/libraries/platforms which are *already*
supported by the config system.

PS: no hope about having info for Green Hills: I wrote to their
support and they forwarded the mail to an Italian company which
manages user requests; they in turn replied with a copy of a page of
the manual, but when I asked what the *format* for the version number
was they didn't reply anymore. I got the definite impression they
didn't know what they were talking about.

--
[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
[    resume:  available on request      ]