Re: [boost] Review request: Bumping borland, SunPro, mwerks and MPW compiler requirements

Subject: Re: [boost] Review request: Bumping borland, SunPro, mwerks and MPW compiler requirements
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-09-26 16:37:59

On 09/25/2013 03:20 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On 09/13/2013 06:10 PM, John Maddock wrote:
>>> Something else that would allow progress would be dropping MPW support
>>> and increasing the SunPro requirement to 5.3 or later.
>>>
>>> That would allow the removal of the
>>> BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION macro.
>> That sounds sensible, anything that still doesn't support that should
>> be considered terminally broken IMO.
> Hello,
>
> Please review the attached patch. From the commit message:
>
>
> Drop support for some ancient compilers.
>
> The MPW one is replaced by Xcode:
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Programmer%27s_Workshop
>
> SunPro prior to 0x530 does not support partial template
> specializations.

As John already said that compilers without partial template
specializations should be considered terminally broken from a current
boost POV, I'll commit theses parts of the patch tomorrow unless there
are objections before then.

Are there any other features, the lack of which would make a compiler
terminally broken? BOOST_NO_SFINAE, perhaps?

>
> It is not clear what compilers define __BORLANDC__. According to
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2BBuilder#Version_history
>
> 0x6xx may have been released in 2002. Bump the requirement to 0x610,
> as most of the ifdefs in boost are < 600. The strange part is that
> boost config issues an unconditional error if > 0x613, and yet parts
> of boost check for version 0x620 (boost::bind) and 0x630. This
> compiler may be untested for a long time.

I'm still confused about Borland. The config file for it makes reference
to Borland 2008 and Borland 6.

There were no objections to the suggestion to drop support for Borland 5.x.

 http://www.boost.org/users/news/old_compilers.html

What should I set the minimum version of __BORLANDC__ to? Does anyone on
this list actually have a Borland compiler (especially a non-ancient
one) for testing?

As far as I know, Borland is succeeded by Codegear. There seems to be
2008, 2009 and 2010 versions of that compiler.

As that succeeds Borland, does it define __BORLANDC__ ? If not, and if
we can drop Borland entirely, I can drop a lot of
ifdefed-for-__BORLANDC__-code. Does anyone on this list actually have a
codegear compiler for testing?

>
> MetroWerks is probably obsolete. Change the requirement to the
> latest known version.

Any information about this one? There is a lot of workarounds for this
one too. Does anyone have one of these compilers for testing?

Thanks,

Steve.