Subject: Re: [boost] Which compilers are not supported for 1.48 ?
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-15 17:36:52
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 01:00:37AM +0400, Antony Polukhin wrote:
> Are really old and broken compilers still supported? Do we need them?
> For example VC++6. It gives thousands of warnings on type_traits and
> boost PP headers. Tests for VC++6 do not compile. Nobody tested boost
> libraries on that compiler for years.
> May be we shall get rid of compilers, that do not support template
> partitial specialization, ADL or SFINAE?
> If not, shall we try to make the tests pass (or at least compile) for them?
These kinds of threads pop up every now and then. The last time I
believe the violent consensus was that it was a bit counter-productive
to touch code uncessarily, especially such code that isn't clearly
delimited by feature test or workaround macros.
Sure, it might not be worth keeping code targeting inferior compilers
around if rewriting or otherwise doing heavy work in the code, but
intentionally destroying functionality for the people that, probably due
to a lack of choice, _do_ use such compilers, sounds a bit evil.
Note that not all compilers are as clearly broken as VC6, which is
properly pre-standard and works mostly out of coincidence.
VisualAge for example is under active development and is generally
competent, tracking several 0x features, on the level of other competing
compilers. It however has some quirks regarding some of the things you
mention. Should it be destroyed as well?
What about SunStudio? It's really broken in some ways, but perfectly
sane in others. Should code that currently is broken be excised, even if
a compiler is improving?
The world needs more compilers, and it saddens me when new libraries are
developed and deployed claiming to be portable but only really builds on
recent GCC and maybe MSVC.
-- Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk