Re: [Boost-users] Removing all support for Visual C++ 7.0, GCC 3.2 and other old compilers

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Removing all support for Visual C++ 7.0, GCC 3.2 and other old compilers
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 17:56:08

Daniel James wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> There has been some discussion on the development list about dropping
> all support for old C++ compilers. This will allow us to remove a lot
> of workarounds and simplify the code but before doing so it's a good
> idea to find out if anyone is still using them. Using boost with these
> compilers will cause a compile error in the config library (you can
> work round that using a custom configuration, but it's unlikely
> you'll be able to get much to work). The currently proposed versions
> for removing support are:
>
>    Digital Mars 8.40 and earlier
>    Visual C++ 7.0 and earlier
>    GCC 3.2 and earlier
>    Intel C++ 5.0 and earlier
>
> Which is, I think, a very cautious list. There's also a good chance
> that we might want to remove support for Borland C++ 5.x. Is there
> anyone still using those compilers?
>
> Just to be clear, this doesn't mean we'll be fully supporting all
> compilers later than these. Old compilers such as Visual C++ 7.1 and
> gcc
> 3.4 won't have a config error and we won't deliberately remove
> support, but support will be patchy. Many libraries (especially new
> ones) don't support those compilers, and we also don't have any
> formal testing for them, so if a new change breaks something, it
> might not be noticed.
>
> If you are still using compilers which are a little more recent than
> the ones listed above, it might still be worth mentioning in case we
> consider removing support for them in the future.
>
> Thanks in advance for any response,

Hmmm - take for example the serialization library.

Little by little over time, tweaks base on boost.config have been 
accumulated
so they are all over the place.  These tweaks depend on macros
defined in boost config with something like "if compiler < borland 5.0" or
something like that.  Would all these "old macros" be eliminated?  This
of course would totally break compilation of the library on any platform.

Is this the case?
Who would fix all this?
What advantage would it bring to anyone.

Of course newer libraries don't support this - but boost has never
required support of anything other the standard C++.

Sorry, I don't think I'm understanding this.

Robert Ramey

> Daniel James