Subject: Re: [boost] Boost c++ language conformance
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-18 18:40:38
on Thu Sep 18 2008, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Mon Sep 15 2008, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Comeau, on whatever platform. In an ideal world, that should extend to any
>>> compiler having the EDG front-end, except that, in the world we have, many
>>> vendors (see e.g. Intel) manage to screw it up in the most creative ways
>>> (perhaps they shouldn't be given access to the front-end source code :-))
>> Most of those "screw-ups" are actually implemented by EDG for Intel and
>> other vendors, because Intel's customers demand compatibility with
>> other, more popular "screwed-up" implementations such as VC++ and GCC.
> I don't think so. Unless someone from EDG tells me that,
They've told me so. Do you think I'd make it up?
> for instance, the non-conformities you can see at
> for Sandia-darwin-intel's, Sandia-intel 9.1, pgi-7.2 (not recognizing a simple
> constant expression as such) were implemented by them.
Frankly, I don't know about those, but it's irrelevant to my point. I
didn't say _all_ the screw ups were intentionally implemented by EDG.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk