On 07/20/13 12:22, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: > dw schreef op za 20-07-2013 om 02:07 [-0700]: > >> An argument could be made that we have broken backward compatibility >> and it's our responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, one could >> say they are using our library incorrectly (by not including any of >> our headers), and the fact that it worked at all was a fluke and >> inconsistent with the MSDN docs. >> > I would say we have to mimic the MSVC behavior as close as possible. > This bring us to the question whether boost can be compiled successfully > for x86_64 using MSVC. If the upstream boost devs have added workarounds > for mingw-specific toolchain bugs we could try to persuade them to drop > or loosen these workarounds.
Agreed, they should use intrin.h like they do on recent MSVC and everything should be fine. This applies to both 32-bit and 64-bit version (on 32-bit version, this will give them perf boost). Still, the question if we want those in our crt is a separated issue. That's a question of being backward compatible, which is important IMO. Too bad those were introduced in the first place... Jacek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
