David Abrahams wrote:
> I'm trying to come up with instructions for compiler vendors who want
> to use Boost to test their compilers. What preprocessor symbols do
> they need to define? So far, it looks like:
>
> - BOOST_NO_COMPILER_CONFIG
> - BOOST_NO_STDLIB_CONFIG - if they want to check the library
> - BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG - to disable some checks in
> source code
> - macros for any known-not-implemented features,
> e.g. BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_TEMPLATES.
>
> Right?
As far as I understand, defining BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG only should be
sufficient (for compiler tests) - given that the compiler being tested has a
bumped up version number.
>
> 2. What about all the places we make compiler-specific checks in
> Boost code? Could we define some macros which make it easier
> and less error-prone to write these, and which can be globally
> turned off when needed?
>
> # if BOOST_COMPILER_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, <= 0x540)
> ...
> #else
> ...
> #endif
>
The checks for the past versions of the compiler, e.g.
#if defined(BOOST_MSVC) && BOOST_MSVC <= 1300
# define BOOST_MPL_MSVC_ETI_BUG
#endif
are harmless for the beta-testing of the new one.
As for checks for current bugs, I think it's our current convention that
they should be guarded by BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG, like this:
#if defined(__BORLANDC__) \
&& (__BORLANDC__ <= 0x570 || !defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG))
# define BOOST_MPL_BROKEN_OVERLOAD_RESOLUTION
#endif
so defining BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG would disable them. I am afraid it's not
thoroughly enforced, though. If we come up with a way to simplify the above,
personally I would be more than happy.
Aleksey
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
