Subject: Re: [boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11<memory> implementation
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-13 04:28:45
> We should actually define BOOST_NO_CXX11_STD_ALIGN for Dinkumware
> version 540. Though it provides std::align in <memory> it is a
> non-conforming implementation; i.e. it adjusts the pointer correctly
> but it does not return the correct address. Dinkumware version 610 has
> it implemented correctly.
I merged your pull-request - many thanks for checking that, John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk