At 09:06 PM 2/1/2004, Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
--- Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
I believe we should not commit any GCC 3.4-specific workarounds until after GCC 3.4 is finalized.
That's too late for the Boost 1.31.0 release. I never suggested committing
changes to the HEAD, just to the release branch. I don't see what harm
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote: the they
could do there. On the other hand I am very anxious to see the next Boost release work in as many environments as possible. Ralf
This is the type of thing that delays Boost releases. It looks like an innocuous change, but who knows? Maybe it triggers an annoying preprocessor bug in one compiler somewhere, and it takes us 2 days to find out, back out the changes, and get another clean run of the regression tests. Beman wants only critical bug fixes on the release branch, and I don't see how we can justify a workaround for an unreleased compiler as a critical bug fix.
Agree 100%. We just saw a case where an apparently innocuous change caused a compiler ICE. If I understand Giovanni Bajo's posting correctly, the gcc bug is scheduled to be fixed, and the very fact that Boost's latest release triggers the bug increases the probability of it being fixed. Besides a general feeling that it is high time to get this release out the door, it is less that two weeks until the deadline for papers for the next C++ committee meeting. Several of us badly need to shift attention to getting material ready for that. After a phone conversation earlier this evening, I gave Dave Abrahams permission to commit a fix for the iterator adaptor issue Robert Ramey reported. Jeff Garland has finished some docs changes he requested permission to make this morning. A hopefully final set of my Win32 regression tests has run and been uploaded. Other tests will cycle overnight, and if they look good in the morning I'll put final release candidates together then. --Beman