"Iain K. Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Boost.Python gets tested against 2.96. I have users who in turn need to support RH7.1 users. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
