Re: [boost] "Remove obsolete MSVC checks" and _MSC_VER

Subject: Re: [boost] "Remove obsolete MSVC checks" and _MSC_VER
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-09-26 13:28:14

On 09/26/2013 07:13 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> People writing new source code are not going to check if it worked
>> with all compilers pretending to be MSVC 7.1 (but not actually MSVC
>> 7.1) and wrap it in an ifdef. We bumped the compiler requirement so
>> that they don't have to do that.
>
> I don't understand.
>
> We bumped the compiler requirements for MSVC. We did not bump the
> compiler requirements for all other compilers that define _MSC_VER.

> Perhaps some of them define it to 1200 or 1300. Not emulating MSVC 7.1
> features is not a reason to disqualify a compiler.

Why not? I think it is. If a compiler claims it only supports MSVC6
features (1200), then all use of MSVC > 6 features need to be wrapped in
ifdefs, and I can revert everything I've committed so far, right?

I guess I don't understand your position.

>> * Removal of near-duplicate code
>> * Removal of obsolete workarounds (pulling in dependencies),
>
> These do not apply to the cases I have in mind, which use _MSC_VER
> properly and not incorrectly, and in which the only change is from
>
> #if defined( _MSC_VER ) && _MSC_VER >= ...
>
> to
>
> #if defined( _MSC_VER )
>
> Nothing is removed, nothing is obsolete, nothing is simplified. I see
> no upside here.

Ok, I see your logic here. Nothing is removed, except, in this case,
part of an #if logic. The code block inside remains.

However, I don't understand your position: I don't understand why such
_MSC_VER usage should be put back in.

Maybe if you can get concrete and point out a compiler in
config/compiler/* that could have a problem with the above kind _MSC_VER
removal, then I might understand. However, if such a compiler is ancient
itself, it makes sense to bump the version of that one too for the same
reasons as before.

Are you saying that you think such _MSC_VER usage should never be removed?

Thanks,

Steve.