Subject: Re: [boost] Changes to VS 2012 config
Date: 2013-01-14 16:05:55
So, to enable CTP support, one would simply build with BOOST_ENABLE_MSVC_2012_NOV_CTP defined, yes?
Senior Software Development Engineer
Dell | Enterprise Solutions Group
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Beman
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:59 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Changes to VS 2012 config
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]>
> >> On 11/28/2012 8:44 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:
> >>> Just so people know - I'm updating the Visual Studio configuration
> >>> to more accurately reflect the capabilities of VS 2012.
> >>> The first step was in
> >>> http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81613
> >>> ; the next step will be to update the compiler features.
> >>> If you see any problems, please let me know.
> >> This is great Marshall. Thanks for doing this. Will there be any
> >> effort made to support the rolling CTP releases of the MS compiler?
> >> The latest CTP has variadic templates, for instance (although they're a
> little buggy).
> > Historically we didn't add config support until a compiler was
> > actually released. But if Microsoft is going to be adding features
> > just via rolling CTP releases, with no formal release for several
> > years, I'd like to see us add the CTP features based on _MSC_FULL_VER.
> > Note that the CTP released didn't bump _MSC_VER.
> > > ... Many messages later...
> Summary: there was a lot of unhappiness with the proposal to treat the CTP
> features as enabled since these features are not yet supported and are
> known to have a relatively high number of bugs. OTOH, some folks do want
> to use the shinny new C++ CTP features, if only to test.
> Someone (sorry, I can't find the message) suggested that we do report the
> features as present, but only when _MSC_FULL_VER is greater or equal the
> CTP full version number &&
> defined(BOOST_ENABLE_MSVC_2012_NOV_CTP). That will allow those of us
> who do want the feature macros to be useable to do so, without getting in
> other folks way.
> If there aren't strong objections, I'd like go ahead with that proposal. The
> actual name of the macro is subject to change, of course, if someone has a
> better name.
> IIRC, the feature macros involved are:
> Unsubscribe & other changes: