Subject: Re: [boost] [config][pathscale] Configurations for older versions
From: Bryce Lelbach (admin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-22 00:41:38
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Please find the attached email Christopher asked me to forward. He's not
subscribed to Boost-devel and please cc him on future replies. I'm to help any
Boost developer that has any issues. Just let us know.
On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:33:36 +0700
"C. BergstrÃ¶m" <cbergstrom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Daniel James <dnljms <at> gmail.com>
> > 2011-01-21 22:08:49 GMT
> > Looking at the failures for patchscale, they seem to be happening
> > because the configuration is only set for '___PATHCC___ >= 4' and tests
> > are run using Pathscale 3.2. This is a new configuration file so I
> > think we should revert it on the release branch and try to fix it on
> > trunk for 1.47.
> This is a recent configuration change done by design and has been
> extensively tested with the new version. EKOPath 4 was just released
> and we're already in discussion with Sandia to get the test machine
> updated asap. Please be patient while that's worked out.
> > I don't know anything about the compiler, but for a start I think we
> > should at least set the 'BOOST__NO__' macros for all versions. Does that
> > sound reasonable?
> I'm happy to work with any boost developer interested in our compiler.
> There's a number of significant improvements in 4.0 for C++, but it
> broke compatibility between 3.x. I hope we can submit results very soon
> which reflect the hard work put into this.
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk