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: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-09-26 17:24:16

On 26 September 2013 22:09, Stephen Kelly <steveire_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 09/26/2013 11:02 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>> On 26 September 2013 21:47, Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> 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. Later versions are
>>> handled by the Codegear config file, which is why that error is never
>>> triggered.
>> I really should have posted a summary of the emails I received by now.
>> There were 5 in total, none of them gave me permission to forward to
>> the list. Text in brackets is my commentary.
>>
>> One said "Yes, please".
>
> 'Yes please' to what? Keeping Borland 5.93 working with trunk? Or some
> earlier Borland version?

To removing support for old compilers, this was in response to my
original email (from when I posted it to the site).

>> One is still using codegear/borland c++ 5.93, which is c++ builder 2007.
>
> That's interesting, but confusing.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2BBuilder#Version_history
>
> says that the version released in 2007 was released by CodeGear. Any
> idea what's going on there?

It was released by codegear. I said in my original email "Borland
5.x", so they were just making sure I'd realise that included some
codegear versions (which I actually didn't know when I wrote the
email). A lot of people continued to call the compiler borland c++ for
some time after codegear took over - I think the executable was still
called 'bcc', and boost build still uses the borland toolset.