Re: [boost] Patch bonanza for VS2013 Preview support

Subject: Re: [boost] Patch bonanza for VS2013 Preview support
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-02 11:54:38

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:53:40PM +0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > What's the best way to spend your vacation if not trying to get Boost to 
> > build on
> > bleeding-edge compilers. I set out to see how well Boost 1.54.0 behaved on 
> > the
> > newly released go-live-ready Visual Studio
> > 2013 Preview. Below is the list of bugs filed against Boost and Microsoft. 
> > Enjoy.
> 
> Firstly, thanks for the work to support VS2013 so quickly. Much appreciation 
> from here!
> 
> Can I ask: did you switch on the Boost macros for the new C++11 support in 
> VS2013 to see how those fare? For reference, these are the newly added C++11 
> features in VS2013 Preview over VS2012:
> 
> * Default template arguments for function templates
> * Delegating constructors
> * Explicit conversion operators
> * Initializer lists and uniform initialization
> * Raw string literals
> * Variadic templates

I did not toggle the defect macros for those features as my goal was to
get it into a buildable state as-good-as-predecessor before twiddling
the knobs for the new capabilities.

My own code seems to still build with the small variety of libraries it
includes if I change the condition [1] to not define the defect macros, but
that's not really an exhaustive test.

[1] #if _MSC_FULL_VER < 170051025 || _MSC_FULL_VER < 180020617 && !defined(BOOST_MSVC_ENABLE_2012_NOV_CTP)

Try it and see, I guess. I'd reckon that they will probably cause little
harm, considering that there's people who have tested the Nov12 CTP in
the past.

> These are coming in the RTM:
> 
> * Alias templates
> * Defaulted functions (except for rvalue references v3)
> * Deleted functions
> * Non-static data member initializers (NSDMIs)
> * C99 _Bool
> * C99 compound literals
> * C99 designated initializers
> * C99 variable declarations

Speculative definition of features of a non-existing compiler based on
promises is a bit too bold, even for my taste.

-- 
Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]