John Maddock wrote:
There are two issues here: the compiler which as you say is a very capable and conformant one, and the standard library it's forced to sit on top of, which is highly non-conforming. The results on our test page would most likely have been run with Intel sitting on top of VC7.1 which is a whole other ball game.
The errors you are seeing:
C:\Libraries\boost_1_33_0\libs\program_options\build\../src/options_description.cpp(378): error: too few arguments for class template "std::reverse_iterator" find(reverse_iteratorstring::const_iterator(line_end - 1),
All stem from not having a conforming std lib to work with. They're probably work-roundable, but it's a lot of work (at our end) for what is an obsolete std lib that's no longer even supported by MS. You may have better luck if you're able to use STLport, but frankly if you can't get approval for VC7.1 which is just so much more stable and reliable than VC6 (all IMO of course), then I'd be surprised if you can get approval for STLport either. :-(
So I'm afraid you're likely to be limited to the sub-set of Boost that works with VC6, sorry,
Thanks John. I certainly wouldn't expect the library to be changed just because of my odd-ball circumstances. The library that I needed urgently, 'program_options' I managed to compile as an MSVC lib project by just altering a few lines (I moved it out of boost so as not to contaminate the source). It's taken me a couple of days to suss everything out, but it's got me out of a hole. When the pressure's off, I'll experiment to see if I can't replace the MSVC6 libraries with more conformant ones. Perhaps using make or even bjam. For the time being though, I'm stuck with MSVC6 for an IDE. The reason I'm stuck with VC6, is due to the legacy nature of this app. it extends back 1995. We have VC8 in use in the office, but our clients are starting to ask about Linux. So who knows where will be going next. -- Rob Marsden Gistix (Northern) Limited