"Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > The page is: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux.html >> > So it should correspond to the HEAD revision. >> > IIUC, the HEAD revision contains Jen's broken patch, so this one should fail. >> >> I am only concerned with RC_1_30_0 here. >> > I see. > >> > I think that the correct patch is to revert Jens' fix. >> > (go back to revision 1.9). >> > >> > Can you and others run a quick test to see if this fix is correct? >> >> RC_1_30_0 already works with GCC-3.2 work for me. >> > I see. > I wonder what would happen with gcc3.3 and 3.3.1 without Jen's patch. > Should I revert that anyway, even if it leaves those compilers unsupported?
Are they healthier without the patch or with it? Can you use BOOST_WORKAROUND to select the best answer for all GCC versions? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
