Boost logo

Boost :

From: James Dennett (jdennett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-28 23:51:29

Simon Atanasyan wrote:
> 2006/11/28, Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]>:
>> James Dennett skrev:
>>> (Unfortunately the platform on which I currently do most of my
>>> work -- Solaris, using Sun's compiler and standard library --
>>> doesn't support much of Boost. Sun's support for boost seems
>>> to be dependent on us being able to use a binary-incompatible
>>> standard library implementation, which is not viable when needing
>>> to link with third-party proprietary libraries.)
>> Maybe Sun need to switch to use stlport as their default standard
>> library for the next compiler release. This would signal which library
>> is considered more compliant and most relevant for library vendors.
>> Special flags should be for backward compliance, not the other way around.
> We're (at Sun) discussing this suggestion. Maybe -library=stlport4
> will be on by default in the next release.

I would welcome such a move.

> But this won't help in that
> case quickly. There are a lot of third-party library developers who
> supplies libraries in a binary format and link it with very old std
> library implementation.

Indeed. But the sooner there's a move towards a relatively
standards-conforming library, the sooner those developers
will move too (even if it will take years).

There are probably changes that could be made even without
breaking binary compatibility: for example, I'm not aware
of any backwards compatibility issues if the member template
functions in the Rogue Wave stdlib were enabled with a
future release of Sun's compilers. (Of course I could be
missing a technical point, or a contractual one, or other.)
On the other hand, enabling piecemeal functionality like
this without the extensive effort you've put into making
Boost work with the Sun CC + STLPort4 toolset probably
wouldn't help all that much with getting Boost to work
with Sun CC + Rogue Wave's stdlib.

-- James

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at