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

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-11 19:36:20

On 2/11/2018 8:25 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of degski via Boost
>> Sent: 09 February 2018 20:56
>> To: boost
>> Cc: degski
>> Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
>>
>> On 9 February 2018 at 14:48, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue with Boost Test is that if it now requires a C++11 level
>>> compiler to use it, every library which tests itself using Boost Test now
>>> requires a C++11 level compiler to run its tests.
>>
>>
>> So, unless this requirement is lifted, the Rubicon has already been
>> crossed...
> 
> In a sense, yes, but Boost.Test C++03 from release 1.66 still exists.

That does little good for testing latest changes.

> 
> So those who stay with C++03 won't be able to rely on the tester-runners to test updated libraries, but they can still use
> Boost.Test C++03 to run the test themselves - if they care.

I would find it a bit alarming if testing a Boost library, which uses 
Boost Test as its testing infrastructure, can no longer be done in C++03 
mode for various compilers. Boost would basically be saying to 
end-users, if you are using such-and-such a library we can no longer 
test it in C++03 mode.

Since I offered my solution to this quandary with CXXD, and since I have 
seen no solution in this thread that is better than what I offered, it 
is useless for me to comment further about trying to solve the problem. 
But Boost should understand exactly what they are telling end-users if 
this change has been made or will be made to Boost Test.

> 
> Or they can freeze their Boost version completely continuing with the bugs they know and love.
> 
> I suspect the Laggards will just muddle on?
> 
> Meanwhile the Modernizers can muddle forward - it clearly isn't straightforward.
> 
> I think that the current process is working OK just as Daniel James's updated guidance (good - thanks) suggests
> 
> https://beta.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Backwards_compatibility
> 
> Paul
> 
> ---
> Paul A. Bristow
> Prizet Farmhouse
> Kendal UK LA8 8AB
> [phone]
> 
> 
> 
> Paul