C++ Builder 2009 and Boost compliance
C++ Builder 2009 has been recently launched and there are some claims about its having much better Boost support than previous versions of the product (see for instance http://tinyurl.com/5r2yxu or http://tinyurl.com/6zjnvx ). Does anyone have first-hand experience of C++ Builder 2009 and can verify these claims? It'd be nice if we could have a regression test runner for this product. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
joaquin@tid.es wrote:
C++ Builder 2009 has been recently launched and there are some claims about its having much better Boost support than previous versions of the product (see for instance http://tinyurl.com/5r2yxu or http://tinyurl.com/6zjnvx ).
Does anyone have first-hand experience of C++ Builder 2009 and can verify these claims? It'd be nice if we could have a regression test runner for this product.
A general evaluation would be nice, too, especially with regards to usability. I'd expect to find several from magazines and dedicated sites, but who trusts them :-) -- Genny
Hi: Having first hand experience, I can tell you that they support boost 1.35, indeed this is well supported and the are examples up on code central on codegears website. I would be happy to do the regression tests, and the construction of a jam ile if tha is what is needed for the new version to compile either boost 1.36, or the trunk. If people want more ifno feel free to write to me privately. I would apreciate if someone involved with the testing could get intouch where are the jam files for each compiler stored? I hope this helps and look forward to helping. Sean. -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Gennaro Prota Sent: 15 September 2008 11:31 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] C++ Builder 2009 and Boost compliance joaquin@tid.es wrote:
C++ Builder 2009 has been recently launched and there are some claims about its having much better Boost support than previous versions of the product (see for instance http://tinyurl.com/5r2yxu or http://tinyurl.com/6zjnvx ).
Does anyone have first-hand experience of C++ Builder 2009 and can verify these claims? It'd be nice if we could have a regression test runner for this product.
A general evaluation would be nice, too, especially with regards to usability. I'd expect to find several from magazines and dedicated sites, but who trusts them :-) -- Genny _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3441 (20080915) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3442 (20080915) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3442 (20080915) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Sean Farrow <sean.farrow <at> seanfarrow.co.uk> writes:
Hi: Having first hand experience, I can tell you that they support boost 1.35, indeed this is well supported and the are examples up on code central on codegears website. I would be happy to do the regression tests, and the construction of a jam ile if tha is what is needed for the new version to compile either boost 1.36, or the trunk.
That's nice! Regression test running is automated by a Python script. Instructions on how to put it to work are given at http://www.boost.org/development/running_regression_tests.html Also, you can find help on testing issues at the dedicated list: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-testing It may be the case that you don't need to change anything to run the tests, or maybe just tweaking this file a litte suffices: <boost-root>/tools/build/v2/tools/borland.jam But probably in the testing list you can get better advice. Good luck, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
Sean Farrow <sean.farrow <at> seanfarrow.co.uk> writes: [...]
I would be happy to do the regression tests, and the construction of a jam ile if tha is what is needed for the new version to compile either boost 1.36, or the trunk.
That's nice! Regression test running is automated by a Python script. Instructions on how to put it to work are given at
http://www.boost.org/development/running_regression_tests.html
Also, you can find help on testing issues at the dedicated list:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-testing
It may be the case that you don't need to change anything to run the tests, or maybe just tweaking this file a litte suffices:
<boost-root>/tools/build/v2/tools/borland.jam
But probably in the testing list you can get better advice.
Sean's contribution would be helpful indeed and I believe you provided the necessary pointers for him to get started. As Borland no longer owns the C++ Builder product I guess the corresponding toolset should be replaced by a new one (codegear?) in the near future; however no change is necessary to Boost.Build in order to use the latest version of C++ Builder. What needs some changing on the other hand is the compiler configuration; I expect to submit a patch for approval later today. Sean, please wait until this first batch of patches is committed before you start testing; all tests will fail until the new compiler is properly configured. Cheers, Nicola -- Nicola.Musatti <at> gmail <dot> com Home: http://nicola.musatti.googlepages.com/home Blog: http://wthwdik.wordpress.com/
joaquin@tid.es wrote:
C++ Builder 2009 has been recently launched and there are some claims about its having much better Boost support than previous versions of the product (see for instance http://tinyurl.com/5r2yxu or http://tinyurl.com/6zjnvx ).
Does anyone have first-hand experience of C++ Builder 2009 and can verify these claims? It'd be nice if we could have a regression test runner for this product.
C++ Builder 2009 comes with a prebuilt version of Boost 1.35 for which support is indeed much improved in the latest compiler. Note however that this is possible thanks to extensive patches that tweak existing Borland workarounds to cater for removed bugs and improved standard compliance. I have agreed to help merging into trunk the patches developed by CodeGear and I plan to start committing in the next few days. Cheers, Nicola -- Nicola.Musatti <at> gmail <dot> com Home: http://nicola.musatti.googlepages.com/home Blog: http://wthwdik.wordpress.com/
Nicola Musatti wrote: [...]
C++ Builder 2009 comes with a prebuilt version of Boost 1.35 for which support is indeed much improved in the latest compiler. Note however that this is possible thanks to extensive patches that tweak existing Borland workarounds to cater for removed bugs and improved standard compliance.
I have agreed to help merging into trunk the patches developed by CodeGear and I plan to start committing in the next few days.
For those interested, here's the first patch: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2327 Cheers, Nicola -- Nicola.Musatti <at> gmail <dot> com Home: http://nicola.musatti.googlepages.com/home Blog: http://wthwdik.wordpress.com/
participants (5)
-
Gennaro Prota -
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz -
joaquin＠tid.es
-
Nicola Musatti -
Sean Farrow