On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:38:03 -0800, "Paul Mensonides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It easy to cause it to error though: > >#define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) (((symbol) != 0) && 1 % ((symbol) >test ? 1 : 0)) Ah, yes, of course! I removed division-by-zero from my mental bag of give-me-an-error-please tools, when I discovered it just emits a warning (removable, what's more) with Borland C++ :-) >[...] >You could do something like this: > >#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, <= 0x530) > >#if defined(BOOST_DEVELOPER_WARNINGS) && __SUNPRO_CC > 0x530 >#pragma boost developer warning: compiler version exceeded >#endif > >// ... > >#endif Well, that's obvious. Libraries that need at least one workaround for the latest version of a given compiler could have a separate include file where they do a suitable test. Since it would be targeted to a specific compiler whatever way to emit a warning or an informational message with that compiler would be acceptable // dynamic_bitset_config.hpp // (probably this file would have a standard name/subdirectory) // #if ( __BORLANDC__ > 0x570) // last checked version #pragma message Compiler version exceeded #endif I was just saying: "it would be nice" IF we could have this feature somehow built-in in the macro used for the workarounds themselves. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
