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 17:01:09

On 09/26/2013 10:47 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 25 September 2013 14:20, Stephen Kelly <steveire_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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.
> The Borland compiler versions aren't the same as the C++ Builder
> versions, Version 6 of the compiler is a lot later. I had an email
> (this morning) from someone who's still using 5.93. 

Any idea when 5.93 was released? Is it ancient? What about the concept
that people using ancient compilers can use ancient boost? I guess
that's not consensus...

> Later versions are
> handled by the Codegear config file, which is why that error is never
> triggered.

Ok, I see. There is also this in select_compiler_config.hpp

#elif defined __CODEGEARC__
//  CodeGear - must be checked for before Borland
#elif defined __BORLANDC__

So, presumably CodeGear defines __BORLANDC__? Can anyone confirm that?
Is it always defined to the same value as __CODEGEARC__?

> Whichever way, I don't think we should make these changes until after
> the next release, they can't be merged to release until then, and it's
> a problem to have significant changes in trunk and release in core
> libraries.

Ok. The discussion can happen independent of patches.

Thanks,

Steve.