[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
Daryle Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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 don't think we support beta versions of compilers, so why should we > support a version of a compiler that its creators (AFAIK) don't even > support? I'm not saying that we should. I'm saying that some of us will anyway, and we shouldn't automatically tell 2.96 users with problems to go away until the library maintainers have had a chance to decide if they're going to try to fix the problem. > For example, if a Boost incompatibility is the fault of the GCC 2.96 > complier, are we supposed to figure out the internal difficulties > and corrections/workarounds that even GCC.org won't bother with? We do that stuff all the time with vc6/7, Borland, gcc 2.95.x, SunPro, HP, Intel 5/6... The list goes on. Even when the compiler is current, the vendor is often of no help finding a workaround. > Anyway, support for certain compiler versions seem to fade as new > versions are released (e.g. we don't really support CodeWarrior Pro > 5.x or MSVC++ 5.x). Do we even support GCC 2.95 that much? The user > can resolve the problem by downloading the 2.95 or 3.x versions, which > gains the user a lot more support, especially if the resolution to a > Boost incompatibility is beyond our ability to fix (like a compiler > patch). Downloading and installing a new compiler for a linux system is beyond the capacities, and sometimes the permissions, of many users. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 8:20 AM, 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 don't think we support beta versions of compilers, so why should we support a version of a compiler that its creators (AFAIK) don't even support? For example, if a Boost incompatibility is the fault of the GCC 2.96 complier, are we supposed to figure out the internal difficulties and corrections/workarounds that even GCC.org won't bother with? Anyway, support for certain compiler versions seem to fade as new versions are released (e.g. we don't really support CodeWarrior Pro 5.x or MSVC++ 5.x). Do we even support GCC 2.95 that much? The user can resolve the problem by downloading the 2.95 or 3.x versions, which gains the user a lot more support, especially if the resolution to a Boost incompatibility is beyond our ability to fix (like a compiler patch). I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem remarkably unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you consider to be the "right" choice of software systems. At Boost we *generally* try not to hold these kinds of missteps against our users, because we're more interested in seeing our software widely used than in avoiding the hassles of platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)! Daryle ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
"David Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Oops, > > I was about to suggest that Boost skip support for both GCC, Intel and > VC++ entirely, and mainly focus on the Borland compiler running on > Windows 98. I had better withdraw that suggestion then... > > /David -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RE: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
Oops, I was about to suggest that Boost skip support for both GCC, Intel and VC++ entirely, and mainly focus on the Borland compiler running on Windows 98. I had better withdraw that suggestion then... /David > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Abrahams > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 2:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96? > > > 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 am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem > remarkably unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you > consider to be the "right" choice of software systems. At > Boost we *generally* try not to hold these kinds of missteps > against our users, because we're more interested in seeing > our software widely used than in avoiding the hassles of > platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change > that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)! > > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > www.boost-consulting.com > > ___ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/bo> ost > ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
"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
[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
Jarl Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Jarl Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > 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). >> >> I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem remarkably >> unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you consider to be the >> "right" choice of software systems. At Boost we *generally* try not >> to hold these kinds of missteps against our users, because we're more >> interested in seeing our software widely used than in avoiding the >> hassles of platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change >> that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)! > > You're right. I must have had a bad day, I apologise, hope you are > open enough to accept it. I've been out running now, that often helps :-) No need to apologize - you're entitled to your opinion, but I (we) accept anyway. I just wanted to let you know that other people may have different priorities. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jarl Friis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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). > > I am noticing a theme in your postings today: you seem remarkably > unsympathetic to anyone who hasn't made what you consider to be the > "right" choice of software systems. At Boost we *generally* try not > to hold these kinds of missteps against our users, because we're more > interested in seeing our software widely used than in avoiding the > hassles of platform dependencies; I don't think you're going to change > that culture with a few postings (at least I hope not)! You're right. I must have had a bad day, I apologise, hope you are open enough to accept it. I've been out running now, that often helps :-) Again, sorry. This is not the right place to advocate my non-boost related opinions about choice of software. Jarl ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
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
[boost] Re: boost::format on gcc2.96?
Gavin Doughtie a écrit : I've been struggling to get boost::format to work on gcc 2.96 and having some awful compile issues. I can't use STL port since I need to link with libraries built against the standard GCC stl. Is there a compatibility flag or something I can set to make this work? A specific error dump is below. Apologies in advance for the direct email. What is the appropriate list/group for questions like this in the future? Direct email is not a problem for me (as long as I dont recevive too many of them in a day :), I dont know about Dave. The best place to continue discussion on the subject of adding compatibility for gcc < 3.0 to format is the boost developper list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] First, I'd like to know : is there absolutely no way you could upgrade to more recent gcc-3.x ? I think the standard-conformance of g++ got so much better with the 3.x versions, that any C++ programmer would have to consider upgrading, sooner or later. I dont see supporting gcc-2.95 as a very important point, now that so many compilers become -at last- close enough to the C++ standard, to require much much less time spent in writing worthless workarounds. The C++ standard library shipped with gcc-2.95 (see P.S.) has many issues, and making format to compile with it would require too many workarounds (eg., almost each template function signature would have to be modified..) to be implemented as #ifdef's in the main header files. Though, I could modify the set of headers to work specifically with gcc-2.95, but even then I think adding those files to boost repository might bring more clutter than worth. (also, to compile with gcc-2.95, I'd have to remove locale support, as well as wchar suppport, rather than spending hours finding how to have them work -if at all possible- with this gcc's library). So this could be a possible solution if this is fine for your needs, and you really, really can't switch to g++-3.x. Best regards, -- Samuel PS : I talk about gcc-2.95 rather than 2.96 as I dont have such a compiler available on my system. I believe gcc-2.96 is a redhat-shipped version of gcc (which gcc's team made clear they do not support, as they never released it), roughly similar to the gcc-2.95,which I know about, and which I have access to on my debian system. I think it is safe to assume the issues with gcc-2.96 are the same with the ones I observed with gcc-2.95 ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
