on Thu Sep 18 2008, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Mon Sep 15 2008, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
Comeau, on whatever platform. In an ideal world, that should extend to any compiler having the EDG front-end, except that, in the world we have, many vendors (see e.g. Intel) manage to screw it up in the most creative ways (perhaps they shouldn't be given access to the front-end source code :-))
Most of those "screw-ups" are actually implemented by EDG for Intel and other vendors, because Intel's customers demand compatibility with other, more popular "screwed-up" implementations such as VC++ and GCC.
I don't think so. Unless someone from EDG tells me that,
They've told me so. Do you think I'd make it up?
for instance, the non-conformities you can see at
<http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/dynamic_bitset.html>
for Sandia-darwin-intel's, Sandia-intel 9.1, pgi-7.2 (not recognizing a simple constant expression as such) were implemented by them.
Frankly, I don't know about those, but it's irrelevant to my point. I didn't say _all_ the screw ups were intentionally implemented by EDG. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com