Subject: Re: [boost] Libraries and C++ compliance
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-12 12:01:04
On 4/12/2017 1:55 AM, Bruno Dutra via Boost wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2017 1:13 AM, "Edward Diener via Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> But again I do not see the issue of libraries having to document which
> compilers and in which modes they support rather than which level of
> coompliance the library supports. It is then up to the end-user to
> understand the compiler(s) being used and to use the proper compiler
> switches for a given library. My OP was to get library creators to take
> seriously the effort to specify the C++ compliance level(s) of their
> library in the library docs.
> I would just like to point out, that sometimes it's not enough to document
> *just* what's the minimum C++ standard a library requires, because we must
> not forget that compilers have plenty of bugs, irrespective of whether they
> support the required C++ features or not, so it is *also* necessary to
> document which specific version of compilers it's known to work with.
I do not think it is necessary to document with which compilers a
library works, but it may certainly be helpful, as in your case. But
this is still usually secondary to documenting the level of C++
compliance needed, which is primary. Compilers can change, even though
older versions of compilers tend not to be "fixed" once a later version
of a compiler is issued. So documentation saying that library LLL
works/does-not-work with compilerX/versionY/C++modeZ is valuable, but
usually less so than being specific as possible about library LLL's
level of C++ compliance and/or the C++ features it uses at any level of
My point is simply that if a library simply tells me only that it works
with compilerX or with compilerX/versionY or even with
compilerX/versionY/C++modeZ, it is not helpful to me at all if I need to
know if it will work with compilerA/versionB/C++modeC. Whereas if it
tells me the level of C++ compliance it needs and/or the C++ features it
uses at any given level I usually have much better information about
whether or not it will work with the compiler I am using.
> Take Metal for instance, the only C++14 feature it requires are relaxed
> constant expressions, but there is a built in workaround for compilers that
> don't implement it, so it would technically be possible to use it even on a
> C++11 compiler that implements alias templates and in fact it works on MSVC
> 14 and GCC < 5 relying solely on C++11 features. However still MSVC 12 and
> the Intel Compiler are unable to pass a single unit test because they have
> serious issues with the kind of SFINAE Metal relies on.
These are great things to document. If a library has a fallback to using
some lower level of C++ compliance that definitely needs to be
documented. Again I wish to point out that even your remarks here, such
as mentioning 'the Intel compiler', means very little to the end-user
unless you mention versions and C++ compliance modes along with it in
your official documentation.
> up until recently
> it also didn't work on GCC prior to 5, because of similar issues and it
> only works on MSVC 14 because of a myriad of workarounds and *a lot* of
> effort invested on working around it's many bugs.
Well Boost PP "works" with the non-standard VC++ preprocessor of VC++ 8
through the latest version of VC++ just released ( call it 14.1 )
through many workarounds, but the doc does not have to say this
explicitly IMO unless the end-user has to do something special to get it
to work in some cases.
Again I would be as specific as possible in the docs in Metal vis a vis
certain compilers/versions/C++ compliance modes. I am not arguing in any
way against such documentation.
> IOW in the case of Metal
> it's just as important to document which compilers it's known to work with
> as it is to state the level of C++ compliance required.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk