Ryan Gallagher wrote:
David Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> writes:
I just saw this post on comp.lang.c++.moderated. I wonder if the Boost.TR1 documentation shouldn't clarify its intended use or degree of conformity. I don't think TR1 conformity is something we have been paying much attention to, is it?
From: Piotr Dobrogost <pd <at> 1.google.dobrogost.pl> [...] But taking TR1 as a test case Dinkumware estimates conformance of free implementations as 15% for Boost, and 12% for Gcc in a comparison to their 100% (http://www.dinkumware.com/tr1_compare.aspx). [...]
That "tr1_compare" page is an "interesting" marketing document. It's quite out of date as it used the Boost 1.33.1 release, thus giving total failures for some tests such as unordered_set. It also doesn't seem to mention the math functions supported. (12% was only for the non-math/c99 portion of TR1.) A request to update should probably be made to them.
I'm not sure what it takes to get a "source license" from them, but if anyone
You can't, at least not as an individual as I already tried a couple of months back. I think they only focus on 'bundle' deals now with compiler vendors? Jamie
has it I wonder if they could investigate this "Quick Proofer" tool they developed. It would seem more believable if they would make this an open source tool for use as a true acid test.
-Ryan
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost