On Jan 5, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Le 06/01/13 00:06, Marshall Clow a écrit :
On Jan 5, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Shouldn't BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS be defined as it doesn't provides a C++11 implementation, or should Boost.Chrono take in account the missing feature of libc++ individually?
I'm not sure what you are referring to with the word "it" in that sentence. I meant if Boost.Config shouldn't not define BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS when using the libc++ as doesn't provide a compliant c++11 implementation.
I think that's an over-reaction. It's a bug. I'm not even sure that we should do anything about it; other than to note it and move on. Clang 3.2 is at RC3 stage, so I'm pretty sure that this will be fixed before we ship Boost 1.53.0 -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki