Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [Outcome] Deniz' review
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-24 19:50:11

> (Maybe, it is even possible instead to provide some hints to
> compiler-vendors where to try to improve their optimizers?)

Back some years ago I submitted bug reports with repros to clang and
MSVC regarding the low quality of optimisation with Outcome. I have no
idea if the repros were used, but the most recent versions of both
compilers do significantly better than previous versions.

>> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
> Yes, I would say so.
> This would be an unconditional yes, even though I would suggest to add a
> small "introductory-tutorial" to the documentation and would like to
> hear what Niall (and others) think about my above remarks concerning
> removal of "option" and re-checking of the specific compiler-optimizations.

Option is just a typedef, very easy to remove.

Andrzej I think just volunteered to redo the landing for me to match
what you want.

Thank you for your review!


ned Productions Limited Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at