Re: [Boost-testing] Sandia-darwin-intel and... Sandia-darwin-intel!

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro.prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-02 20:31:14

Hi Noel,

you wrote:
> I'm open to suggestions on the naming conventions...

I'd suggest: CompilerNameAndVersion-OS-[Hardware, if relevant], 
eventually followed by the company name. Examples:

Intel 9.1 - Mac OS X - x86 (Sandia)
gcc 4.0.1 - Mac OS X - x86 (Sandia)

gcc 4.2.1 - HP UX - ia64  (HP)

etc.

>>>> <http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/dynamic_bitset.html>? 
>>>>
> 
> So this code on the release branch :
> 
>     return do_count(m_bits.begin(), num_blocks(), Block(0), 
> static_cast<m*>(0));
> 
> seems to compile okay with intel.  Can we use something like this on the 
> development branch to fix this problem?

Gulp. Isn't that gcc 4.0.1? (Note that I'm talking about the Intel 
compiler, not Intel CPU).

However you suddenly made me realize that I'm worrying about a 
compiler not tested for release. I'll simply ignore it, especially 
since a) they have regressions on code which is so simple as to 
compile and work with VC6 b) they use an EDG front-end and manage 
always to screw it up in the most creative ways (which really requires 
some art); so, they don't deserve any support as far as I'm concerned.

-- 
Genny