Boost logo

Boost :

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
> +44 (0) 1539 561830
>
>
>
> Paul


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk