Re: [Boost-users] Spirit Porting

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Spirit Porting
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-30 21:23:26

On 10/31/10 1:24 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> On 10/30/2010 8:09 AM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>
>>>> Currently I building on AIX and use the new IBM compiler (v11.1)
>>>> but If I understand correctly you are saying dont bother trying to
>>>> port from classic->Qi.  ?
>>>
>>> It's difficult for me to suggest anything as I have no experience
>>> with the IBM compiler. All I have is second hand knowledge from my
>>> talks with Michael Wong and from what I gather the Boost regression
>>> tests. I know they are working on the compiler to improve Boost
>>> compatibility, but Spirit was not on Michaels list of important
>>> Boost libraries to support.
>>>> Is it possible to provide more detailed information, about what
>>>> parts of spirit Qi(I assume this is V2) the IBM compiler cant cope
>>>> with ?
>>>
>>> If you look at the tests, you'll see that all are failing for this
>>> compiler.
>>
>> It will definitely take a lot of effort to support the IBM compiler.
>
> It should be noted that all the tests are failing at the same spot
> within MPL with the same error.  Also, VACPP is passing all
> MPL tests except one.

Cool. So why don't you try doing it yourself?

> This would suggest that it's worth the effort to fix/workaround this one
> failure
> which originates in the MPL library.

Sure! Try it!

> Of course no one can know
> what's over the error horizon - but a little effort would likely yield
> a lot more information as to what might have to be done to
> permit the new spirit to work with this compiler.
>
>> Last time we had a chat with Michael Wong at BoostCon 2010, we
>> requested that the infrastructure used by Spirit be given some
>> attention (e.g. Fusion). That's the best I can say ATM.
>
> The fusion tests show
> lots of failures on VACPP - but many of them are from the same
> source. It's unclear how much of the xml_archive syntax (if any) depends
> on those parts of fusion which aren't working  here.
>
>> The rest is
>> up to us. Alas, neither Hartmut nor I have access to the IBM compiler
>> nor have any experience with it. If Spirit classic can compile on the
>> IBM compiler, then someone must have done some work to make it so. I
>> don't recall who that is anymore.
>
> I can tell you I never did anything specifically regarding spirit and the
> IBM compiler.  From my perspective - it just worked.  This was
> the source of my initial enthusiasm for spirit.
>
>> If you, Robert, or anyone else
>> would want to do the same for Spirit2, then that would be very
>> welcome.
>
> lol - since I did nothing before, I'm happy to do the same again.

Reread that again before trying to sound cute. I never said it
was you who worked on the IBM compiler.

Spirit classic worked on the IBM compiler because someone made it
work and I should give credit to the unknown hero. Of course it could
also be the IBM guys who made it work. I don't know. All I know it
didn't happen automatically, especially with a broken compiler.

>> I can't speak for Hartmut, but I don't have sufficient time
>> nor resources to support the compiler.
>
> I"m sorry to hear that.  I hope someone with this compiler can
> invest some effort to see how far this can go.  To repeat the above,
> it's quite possible that a little effort would make the current spirit
> sufficiently usable in many cases.  That would go along way
> in my opinion.
>
> The source of this discussion has been the result of my (and I believe
> other's)
> misunderstanding of the evolution of spirit from 1.x to 2.x .  I had
> presumed
> that this was some sort of upgrade in that 2.x would do everything the 1.x
> package would do plus a lot more and be faster (at least at runtime) than
> 1.x
> The way the headers are arranged and the "deprecated" warning message
> strongly suggested that users should upgrade to the new system and that
> we were being notified that support for 1.x would be expiring in some
> (near?)
> future.  Now it's clear that I misinterpreted all this.  I think things
> would

Here's one of the messages:

warning "This header is deprecated. Please use: boost/spirit/include/classic_core.hpp"

How unclear is that? It has been there for 3 years now!

> have been helped alot if there was a whole new library, set of directories
> namespace, etc. called "spirit2".  Instead of a compiler warning - which
> users (my self included) take as indication that my code should be changed,
> I think it would have been more accurate to state somewhere something
> like. "Support for spirit 1.x is now limited - users are encouraged to
> use spirit2 for new applications".   I think that would have helped us a
> lot.

I wouldn't go into this unproductive discussion again. Let me tell
you this: stop pointing blame! It's totally nauseating. Stop pretending
that you are a monopoly of what is right and correct.

If you really care about the IBM platform, then work on it.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://spirit.sf.net