Re: [boost] [1.36.0] High priority compilers for this release?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-03 15:55:58

Amit wrote:
> Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
> 
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care 
>> about this compiler/platform.
> 
> Whaa?? I would suggest that ICL 10.1 should be supported. It is probably the most
> conformant (and the best optimizing) compiler out there. Irritatingly, 10.0 had
> introduced many regressions over 9.1, but with 10.1 things appear to be back on
> track.
> 
> Mind you, to get the best optimizations, some esoteric flags have to be used;
> also, by default the optimizer is set to favour speed at the cost of floating 
> point accuracy. I have played around a bit with optimization settings, and can
> post the options I use to build boost components (since bjam does not include
> aggressive optimization settings), if someone would find it useful.
> 
> Anyhow, fwitw, I strongly favour keeping ICL support - even if it is not used
> much owing to not being free, it would function an examplar to other vendors.

We would need a volunteer or volunteers to (1) do the testing, and (2) 
work with Intel and Boost developers to ensure that bugs get fixed.

Sean Huang has been testing the trunk, and I've been testing the release 
branch. I really want to turn the release branch testing over to someone 
else, and find someone else to pester Intel and/or Boost developers when 
things break.

So we basically need an Intel/Windows volunteer.

--Beman