Roland Schwarz wrote:
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
I support this aggresive deadline-based approach and very much appreciate your efforts to get Boost 1.34 out of the door, we've just been procrastinating way too long. Hopefully, the planned post-1.34 switch to SVN and Beman's always-ready approach to code base management will avoid these problems in the future.
In principle I agree. Where I do not agree is the fact that we currently do not have a single gcc (mingw/cygwin) regression result.
I think it would be a fault if boost is omitting such a mainstream compiler!
Nod. However, there are problems building dll's with mingw that are causing us apparent regressions (the static library builds all work - which is what we tested at the last release). See http://tinyurl.com/26pz5g for a typical example. The cause is a mingw linker problem rather than anything we can fix in Boost. I had a go at changing the regex/build Jamfile to static link when building with mingw, but apparently the toolset names don't match up: is there any way we can apply a build option to all gcc-mingw* toolsets? John.