Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 / C++11 compatibility question for compiled libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-12 07:52:32
On 2/12/2018 2:32 AM, Raffi Enficiaud via Boost wrote:
> Le 12.02.18 Ã 02:17, Peter Dimov via Boost a Ã©critÂ :
>> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>>> degski wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> In a sense, yes, but Boost.Test C++03 from release 1.66 still exists.
>>> 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.
>> The practical effect of Boost.Test requiring C++11 will be that
>> everything C++03 in the test matrix (using Boost.Test) will fail.
>> We'll have to deal with that in some way. One option is to just stop
>> testing C++03. Another is to migrate the libraries away from Boost.Test.
>> Yet another is to do nothing and pay no attention to failures.
>> Number two is the only option making any sense to me,
> Are you serious? I committed to maintain Boost.Test, not to burry it.
> Boost.Test **does** support C++03 and C++11. Boost.Test has values in
> the C++ testing ecosystem, there is no point in killing it.
> The initial question was a technical one, something that did not appear
> obvious to me about mixed APIs spanning several dialects. I am not
> asking for people to tell what the fate of Boost.Test should be: I am
> well aware that Boost.Test needs to continue supporting C++03, I am
> taking care of that. And yes, Boost.Test is used by people outside the
> Boost community.
That is good to hear. Thanks !
>> but keep in mind
>> that many of the affected libraries have no active maintainers, and the
>> CMT is not terribly underworked.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk