Subject: Re: [boost] [c++11]
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-16 14:27:19
> > 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.
Sorry, but I was under the impression, that Boost.AFIO is intended to be
reviewed and added to Boost proper. Well, there is still the review, but if
it ends up in Boost there probably will be many interesting use cases left
out in the dark for other Boost authors if it's C++11 only. From my distant
vantage point wrt this thread it seems that you're a bit too short
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk