Re: [boost] Intel C++ for Linux defines __GNUC__!!

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 10:28:48

On Saturday 03 January 2004 03:35 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> I am inclined towards a new policy for Boost which requires compiler
> identification only via BOOST_-prefixed macros.

For workarounds, I agree. For extensions (such as the aforementioned #pragma 
once), we should allow use of non-BOOST_-prefixed macros, because vendors 
claiming compatibility with another compiler generally support the 
extensions... just not the weirdo bugs that Boost tends to encounter.

> If we do that, we can also ensure that BOOST_CONFIG #defines all of
> them (mostly to zero) and we can eliminate the issues with warnings
> from BOOST_WORKAROUND doing comparisons on macros which haven't been
> defined.

I didn't realize there were such issues, but this is a good idea.

        Doug