From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-24 07:03:53
Toon Knapen wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Even gcc developers consider requiring C++. If they consider it, than
> > surely every other project can just switch. Also, one of the primary
> > goals of Boost.Build is to be build system for C++ Boost -- which is
> > collection of C++ libraries. Surely user needs a C++ compiler anyway.
> I understand your motivation. But for me one of the most important
> design goals of bjam is portability. Many libraries claim to be
> multi-platform which usually means linux and windows. For me
> multi-platform means windows-i86, linux-i86, linux-power, linux-itanium,
> irix-mips, aix-power, solaris-sparc, hpux-parisc, hpux-itanium. AFAICT
> support for vms is not necessary anymore and tru64-alfa is also
Well, that's why I mentioned "Unix flavours", not Linux ;-) I guess all those
system have C++ compiler?
> It would be a good idea though to specify the platforms you intend to
> support and to verify regularly if this portability is accomplished. I
> can help you doing that if you want. For instance, I can recompile your
> code-base every night on most of the platforms mentioned above and
> publish the results (similar to the boost regression status pages)
I think if we decide that we can use C++ (and also the set of features we'll
use), that kind of testing will be very valuable. Thanks!
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk