Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-08 22:08:15

On 8 February 2018 at 15:06, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> So mp11 and Beast need to be C++17 because those using C++11 can always
> use an earlier version of Boost.

No, no, no, f.e. boost::mp11, or boost::beast are to be compiled with C++11
and should therefor use std C++11 libraries instead of their equivalent
boost version... (as boost::mp11 does, as far as I've seen, but you're far
better placed to say something about that than me, I would say).

Boost-1.66 source code plus the stuff that is generated building boost
(just x64, debug, release) occupies very close to 5GB of disk-space, time
to start cutting that down.

But if your using gcc-3.3, clang-3.6 or vs2012, one cannot expect boost
-1.67 to compile with it. On windows, I would say this is more of an issue
as on linux, as you'd be obliged to use/install old crt's, that are known
to have (publicized) vulnerabilities...

I have an issue with boost looking backwards all the time. Clang and VC
(we've got (experimentally) concepts!) both seem to have (nowadays) adopted
very much a forward looking view, to be ahead of the standard. I would like
boost to do the same. I'm talking about std::random (boost version
deviates), std::chrono (not sure whether boost version deviates),
std::file_system (boost version deviates), etc...

degski