David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "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?
without it. >Can you use > BOOST_WORKAROUND to select the best answer for all GCC versions? > Yes, I think. Though I cannot test it myself. How do I apply the patch? I mean, what do I do with CVS to have it on the right branch/tag. (I guess that if I just commit it, it won't end on the right place) Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
