Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Re: [1.51][Release] Short release cycle
From: Belcourt, Kenneth (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-29 15:24:06

On Jun 29, 2012, at 1:20 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:

>>>>> We should permit individual libraries to target only very
>>>>> recent compilers, if the library author so chooses and there is
>>>>> good reason.
>>>> I think this is the case with boost.lockfree. It is not easy to
>>>> implement it without atomics, and there are no atomics for the
>>>> C++03 (yet).
>>> I already suggested that Tim add Lockfree to trunk with only C++11
>>> support, so you're arguing against the wind, I guess.
>> And thus begins the downfall.
> at one point, library authors will want to use c++11 language features
> which cannot be emulated like lambdas? of course we could use c++03
> forever ...
> one way could be to provide a c++11-only version of boost (boost), which
> includes c++11 libraries and possibly strips all boost libraries, which
> have been included in c++11?
>> One library will start to depend on Lockfree, and soon it's all a
>> right mess of trying to get anything to work on a perfectly
>> conformant C++03 compiler.
> iac, will try to add lockfree to trunk this weekend

I just turned on a Linux and Darwin clang trunk c++0x build. Hope that helps.

-- Noel

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