From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-02-25 22:22:18
On 2/25/2021 5:04 PM, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
> On 2/26/21 12:15 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>> On 2/25/21 12:48 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost wrote:
>>> Conditioning a boost test on boost version < N is equivalent to just
>>> unconditionally suppressing it, no?
>> No - because boost version <= 1.75 math library supports C++03 while
>> other versions don't/wont.
> I think the point was that with the Boost version check you won't be
> running these tests *at all* in the current and future Boost.
>>> Isn't the goal to only suppress it when not compiling >= C++11?
>>> Shouldn't you just check __cplusplus >= 201103 for that?
>> Hmmm - is this portable on all compilers?Â Is this part of config.hpp?
> __cplusplus is a standard C++ macro, but not all compilers consistently
> define it to >= 201103 in C++11 mode. Most notably, MSVC doesn't.
The compilers that emulate the msvc non-standard preprocessor, such as
the VC++ based versions of Intel C++ and also NVCC I believe, report
incorrect __cplusplus values. I also recall that some past versions of
gcc reported an incorrect _cplusplus value, although I do not recall in
which gcc version this was corrected. So unfortunately it is not
completely reliable, even with major compilers. BTW the new C++ standard
non-default preprocessor ( /Zc:preprocessor ) in VS2019 gets it right
and is a very good C++ standard preprocessor.
> If you want to check macros (which is what I'm doing in Boost.Integer to
> solve a similar problem with Boost.Multiprecision) then I'd suggest to
> check Boost.Config macros for the particular C++11 features that are
> required by Boost.Math. You may even peek in Boost.Math sources to see
> what these macros are, if they are checked there.
Yes, that is the only reliable solution right now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk