- Original Message -
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC
3.3)
> [EMA
Beman Dawes wrote:
> (I still haven't gotten over Microsoft being the
> first compiler to pass 100%. The world takes some strange twists
> sometimes.)
Well, it's not like this happened by an accident, is it? It's been
explicitly stated that they are committed to this goal, and they made it
hap
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| At 07:02 PM 8/10/2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| >More seriously, did you have a chance to test GCC-3.3.1?
|
| I just tested 3.3.1 on Windows, and the 7 ublas tests which had been
| failing on 3.3 are now passing. The variant libraries variant_test4 i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Walter) writes:
[...]
| > This whole thing (-fabi-version) is messy. It is what one gets by
| > taking users for beta testers ;-)
|
| That's not the whole story. When testing with GCC 3.3.1 prerelease I noticed
| that setting -fabi-version isn't necessary anymore. So I
At 07:02 PM 8/10/2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>More seriously, did you have a chance to test GCC-3.3.1?
I just tested 3.3.1 on Windows, and the 7 ublas tests which had been
failing on 3.3 are now passing. The variant libraries variant_test4 is also
now passing.
The current plan is to use 3.3.
Hi Gabriel,
you wrote:
> | >>> On the other hand if your native compiler is GCC and your system
was
> | >>> not configured with that setting, then you may get into trouble --
> | >>> since you'll be mixing translation units with different ABIs.
> | >>
> | >> Furthermore, that sounds like a w
