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"
>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
>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
>I am not sure whether BOOST_CXX_DEC
>will be recognised after so many name changes.
>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 ]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk