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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-03 15:56:48

John Maddock wrote:
> 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.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree to that: Intel have been extremely responsive in the 
> past in responding to compiler issues relating to Boost, and given the level 
> of conformance offered by this compiler, does it really soak up that much 
> time to officially support it?  Incidently, it's good to have at least one 
> EDG based front end in our official support list, even if it does emulate 
> the MSVC bugs ;-)

Would you like to volunteer for testing and followup:-?

--Beman