On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:58 PM [GMT+1=CET], > Ronald Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Rene Rivera wrote: > > > > > [2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote: > > > > > > > > I would like to request the addition of the -ansi flag to the > > > > [ ... ] > > It is our usual policy to run in "most conforming, plus extensions mode". > IOW, extensions like long long and platform-specific capabilities like > __cdecl are typically enabled when they're available. > > What does -ansi add/remove from the capabilities of Intel C++? > I'm afraid I don't know all of the details, but I was specifically interested in it's noticing the use of values from template-dependent base classes. A little while ago, there was some discussion of bugs in multi_array related to this issue. I discovered then that of the compilers I currently use, icc with the "-ansi" flag was the only one that detected this error. I (hopefully!) fixed those bugs, which are in a sense resulting from compiler extensions (i.e. the EDG front-end can be smart enough to dive into dependent base classes to find info). I'm not sure what your thoughts on this "feature" wrt Boost.Build is. Perhaps Boost.Build could use a flag marking certain levels of strictness. Were that the case, the Boost regression test system could enforce a higher level of strictness than vanilla Boost.Build....or we could leave it as is and I could just ignore future bug reports ;-). Cheers, ron _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
