Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-14 20:08:48
On 14 June 2013 19:41, Andreas Schäfer wrote:
> On 20:20 Fri 14 Jun , Lars Viklund wrote:
>> Even if GCC can target an OS, it's not always as suitable as the native
>> compiler on the OS, with the native runtime. There are also several
>> alternative C++03 compilers that serve special purposes. Should projects
>> needing their other features (excellent auto-vectorisation, etc.) have
>> to completely drop Boost due to an urge to constantly target the
>> bleeding edge.
> I'd like to add some examples here: if you work on any IBM big iron
> (e.g. Blue Gene), then you're expected to use XL C++, on Cray it's
> crayCC and finally Fujitsu ship their own compiler for their vector CPU
> machines, too. Even if you use GCC, you might need to use an older
> version, e.g. folks working with CUDA are currently tied to GCC 4.6.
Sure. And how many of those folks are currently relying on Boost.AFIO
and so are affected by it being C++11-only?
Hint: the answer is less than one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk