David Abrahams wrote:
Martin Wille writes:
The fix made to the gcc toolset regarding the use of the
GXX variable should be backported to 1_30_2.
Please be more specific, i.e. post a patchset.
If I had a patchset then I would have applied it :)
(I sent a bug report some time ago to the
[2003-08-11] David Abrahams wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, sure, as long as we are in agreement about having differently
named toolsets for different compiler versions/configurations, e.g.
bcc-5.5.1
bcc-5.6.4
intel-7.1-vc60
intel-7.1-vc60-stlport
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg46513.php
indicating some interest in combining thread safety and
decoration. It seems to me (a novice in threading) that
what needs to be protected is the access to the end
of the pipeline, i.e. the final streambuf, which is
connected to the
At 08:00 AM 8/11/2003, John Maddock wrote:
I'm not sure how to proceed with this so if there is anything I can do
in the meantime, let me know. Feel free to e-mail me off the list.
OK, I've got this working pretty well with regex - but as it entails
changes
to boost.config I'm not sure if I
At 01:39 PM 8/8/2003, Martin Wille wrote:
In order to avoid problems to be discovered too late for fixing them
I'll list the tests that fail for many compilers/compiler versions
on Linux:
- filesystem::operations_test
Hum... That looks like a CVS problem. It looks like
--- Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
E. Gladyshev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since GTL is already taken, how about GTF (GUI
Template Framework)?
Can't we be more imaginative than that? Aren't we
all
already saturated with acronyms and acronyms and yet
more
acronyms? There is no
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 07:37 AM 8/11/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes wrote:
Assuming I'm release manager for 1.31.0, I'm going to publish
explicit
release criteria for key platform/compiler pairs. Basically, the
criteria will be
Douglas Paul Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
According to your chart, the following libraries are all regressing:
function
Are these real regressions or just newly-tested compilers? Can the
library authors/maintainers address these problems?
Alisdair Meredith wrote:
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
While I totally support the failures markup goal, I would like to see
_the_ release criteria to include no regressions from the previous
release item as well, preferrably for all non-beta compilers that are
currently under regression
Brock Peabody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Because for a pretty large number of applications you can really
simplify your code a lot by relying on the GUI system to 'do the right
thing':
using boost::gui;
void my_action() {...}
void
David Abrahams wrote:
Martin Wille writes:
Hello,
a couple of libraries are regressing for gcc-2.95.3/Linux:
date_time
graph
iterator
multi_array
numeric/interval
numeric/ublas (only with stlport)
random
variant
Are those libraries supposed to support gcc-2.95?
iterator is.
I am trying to compile Boost against the uClibc libraries. This requires
that I define a custom value for LD_LIBRARY_PATH, so that my uClibc
libraries are used instead of the standard system libraries.
The problem I have is that building Boost.Python generates its own
LD_LIBRARY_PATH
George A. Heintzelman wrote:
Given that I have a string 's' from somewhere, I'd like to create a
regular expression where some part must match that string. The problem
is, the 's' could contain characters that have a special meaning in
regular expressions. Is there some support function that
Eugene,
one more thing when you implement the GUI library.
I ALWAYS hated the message maps from MFC/WTL.
So now I came up with a quite cute method of automating registering of events for a
given window.
(this should work for registering messages, etc.)
It's very flexible. In other words,
The confusion is that your interpretation (more
traditional) of a modern GUI framework is a bit
different from notus. We are not concerned with
building low-level controls. The low-level
implementation is basically proveded by the platform
(Mac, win32, etc.). Notus is just going to be using
it.
Brian McNamara [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't speak for bind/lambda, although I imagine there must be a way,
probably involving delaying the evaluation of _1 for one step.
Using FC++, it would be
using fcpp::fun1;
using fcpp::lambda;
using fcpp::ptr_to_fun;
16 matches
Mail list logo
