Subject: Re: [boost] [build] Default compiler options for a toolset
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-21 15:43:54
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:28:26PM -0500, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 11:07 AM, Lars Viklund wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:33:33PM -0500, Edward Diener wrote:
> >>I disagree. When/if clang changes the particular jam file should change
> >What about people that must, want to, or need to use a Boost version
> >released with the proposed /EH muting in effect together with a future
> >clang-cl compiler that actually implements /EH.
> Why in the world would I add a compiler option to a compiler which does not
> support it just in case that compiler might support that compiler option in
> the future ?
>From the sounds of it, this seems to be more about actively removing
things that are already in place.
And as for "might", I'd bet three pinecones on that it is actually
"will", unless some patent or other fundamental stupidity _prevents_
proper EH/RTTI in future Clang.
To be honest, you're weighing some minor warning spam from the compiler
against forever making a release unusable with future versions of that
Sadly I don't get to make the choice, but I sure will say my opinion on
things that look intrinsically odd.
(I'd like my bikeshed purple, thank you.)
-- Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk