Subject: Re: [boost] [context] Don't hard-code the assembler
Date: 2014-04-08 03:31:11
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oliver Kowalke" <oliver.kowalke_at_[hidden]>
> would burden to provide an implementation for each toolset out there
> its own assembler syntax) on my shoulders - and I can imagine that
> I'll get
> emails like "... my toolset on this platform with this OS is very
> - why are you so lazy not to provide an implementation for it? you
> must do
> it immediately ..." - even if I don't have the architecture/OS at home
> documenation or any information at my hand.
That is exactly what the rest of Boost has to do with C++ compilers. Workarounds and alternate implementations abound. I am fully aware of the burden this places on the typical Boost developer. Personally, I would prefer "unsupported" over fallback to a different toolset (or assumption of said toolset).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk