Hi Benson, Benson Margulies ha escrito:
I beg the indulgence of the maintainers to clarify the support intentions here and then I'll go back to my cave.
Please stay out of the cave :) I'm afraid there's no appointed group of people to whom you can officially refer as "the maintainers" --Boost structure is rather informal, some folks care about some particular libs, others contribute regression testings for their platforms of interest, etc. So, supporting a particular lib in a particular platform necessitates a willing author/contributor and a willing tester --maybe you can be the willing tester. Without a stable regression tester for a particular platform, it's extremely unlikely that that platform can receive proper attention.
The facts are:
1) The regression tests run reasonably on CC 5.8, with or without -library=stlport4
Regression tests are satisfactory for -library=stlport4, http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_34_0/developer/su... (column sun-5.8) but there is no current regression tester running without stlport4, so we can't know how well that option would perform. The -library=stlport4 tester is Doug Gregor, http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_34_0/OSL4-V2.html so maybe he can tell us why he opted for stlport4 and what the general behavior without that is.
2) I have a seemingly simple example of using multi_index that won't compile with CC 5.8 unless I'm using -library=stlport4. The compile error, for what it's worth, does not point to one of the weaknesses of the 'old Sun STL' in any obvious way. But it could easily be that some ifdef that is trying to compensate for the old STL is in turn creating the conditions for the failure.
I am as mystified as you wrt to this particular error :( Having a test run for all Boost libs would certainly give us a more comprehensive vista on the general behavior of CC 5.8 without stlport4 --and could help us determine whether this is a fixable thing or if we're beyond all hope of supporting the compiler.
(I'm not entirely sure about #1.)
The question is:
"Is it the intention of the maintainers to support CC 5.8 without -library=stlport4?"
If the answer is 'yes', then I will nudge to get this case included in the regression, and I will invest some time in trying to unscrew the inscrutable error.
If the answer is 'no', then I will concentrate on moving our Apatosaurus of a code-base to getting itself compiled with -library=stlport4 as soon as I can, and defer use of boost until that can accomplish itself.
If there is a stable regression tester running CC 5.8 without stlport4, I'll certainly take a look at the failures in Boost.MultiIndex and try to fix them. Maybe you're in a position to be that tester. Without testing support I'm afraid my help would be much less effective, since the platform is not so easily available, although of course you can count on my assisting you nevertheless. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo