Tobias Schwinger wrote:
Careful, here -- they did! Well, that is one with a higher version number ;-)
Latest official BCC shipped with BuilderX:
BORLANDC == 0x565
Thanks, had not realised they increased the version number of the compiler, I was only aware of linker fixes.
Latest Builder6 upgrade pack:
BORLANDC == 0x564
OK, now we're in agreement <g>
Kylix (didn't verify it myself - source: Boost.Config):
BORLANDC == 0x570
Oops, keep forgetting about that one! Trouble is, no-one appears to be testing with it, or at least, it does not show on the Boost regression test lists. I would be very reluctant to use BOOST_TESTED_AT with a higher version than was actually tested!!! IIUC, the workaround is still applied when using BOOST_TESTED_AT, regardless of compiler version. However, if you #define BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS you will get a warning for every BOOST_TESTED_AT which gives a lower version, so that you can turn it into a more definite <= test one the bug is fixed, or raise the version number to recognise the latest testing.
It seems all are pretty close in terms of portability (for the former two I know it and for Kylix it's another guess reading Boost.Config), so testing for below 0x600 is what you want, I guess (and above 0x551, reading the follow-up).
0x600 seems to be Borland's version series for the EDG-front end they were experimenting with. As I understand, those experiments are on hold now, so we may see future compilers with versions > 0x565 and < 0x600. Remember the EDG front end was only ever a preview, not a supported, released product. It does make life tough library writers though! AlisdairM