On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 13:20, David Abrahams wrote: > Jarl Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> All true. Unfortunately, 2.96 was released by RedHat with one popular > >> version of Linux, which makes it (in many peoples' eyes) an important > >> compiler to support anyway. > > > > I will in line with the announcement suggest that any support needed > > for or related to this particular gcc version should be redirected to > > the supplier of the compiler (i.e. redhat). > > That's a very nice way to avoid extra work for Boost library > developers which they shouldn't have to do in the first place, but > since RedHat isn't actually going to do anything for users, leaves > them in the cold. >
I thought that the general advice on most open source lists was to avoid this compiler like the plague. I believe that this has also been the advice on boost in the past. I don't think any boost libraries explicitly support 2.96 and I can't see any regressions being run for it. /ikh _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
