Boost logo

Boost :

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>> 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>>
> [...]
>> 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%
>> (
> [...]
> 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


> 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:

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