Re: [boost] Intentions of Boost.TR1

Subject: Re: [boost] Intentions of Boost.TR1
From: Jamie Allsop (ja11sop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-01 20:07:38

Ryan Gallagher wrote:
> David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
>> I just saw this post on comp.lang.c++.moderated.  I wonder if the
>> Boost.TR1 documentation shouldn't clarify its intended use or degree of
>> conformity.  I don't think TR1 conformity is something we have been
>> paying much attention to, is it?
>>
>> From: Piotr Dobrogost <pd <at> 1.google.dobrogost.pl>
> [...]
>> But taking TR1 as
>> a test case Dinkumware estimates conformance of free implementations
>> as 15% for Boost, and 12% for Gcc in a comparison to their 100%
>> (http://www.dinkumware.com/tr1_compare.aspx).
> [...] 
> 
> That "tr1_compare" page is an "interesting" marketing document.  It's quite out
> of date as it used the Boost 1.33.1 release, thus giving total failures for some
> tests such as unordered_set.  It also doesn't seem to mention the math functions
> supported.  (12% was only for the non-math/c99 portion of TR1.)  A request to
> update should probably be made to them.
> 
> I'm not sure what it takes to get a "source license" from them, but if anyone

You can't, at least not as an individual as I already tried a couple of 
months back. I think they only focus on 'bundle' deals now with compiler 
vendors?

Jamie

> has it I wonder if they could investigate this "Quick Proofer" tool they
> developed.  It would seem more believable if they would make this an open source
> tool for use as a true acid test.
> 
> -Ryan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>