Vladimir Prus wrote:
Not that I care about 2.95 either, but I think the reasoning in this thread is a bit faulty. Developers just say "it's too old and non-conforming". But who knows what's used in practice, especially outside of bleeding-edge Linux distros?
LynxOS here (distributed real-time control systems), with g++ 2.95 toolchain. No way to upgrade for the foreseeable future due to the complex net of dependencies between components, some of which are not our own. Since g++ changed ABI in the meantime, upgrading the compiler means that the whole world needs to be recompiled and relinked. This is what makes the upgrade near to impossible. I try to promote Boost for development here and there's a lot of "resistance". If Boost drops support for 2.95, it might be an additional argument against using Boost at all. (On the other hand, if we're using stone-age compilers, we might as well stick to some existing Boost version - if it's accepted for use - and just not follow its evolution. That's still fine, because the most fundamental Boost libraries are already stable and useable.) This is not to tell you that you should keep supporting stone-age compilers forever, just to show that the world is not composed of only latest Linux distros that we can get with the Sunday's newspaper. There are companies and institutions that are bound to older compilers and cannot just press the "upgrade" button. Having said that and being still completely serious, I'd drop support for 2.95 and for everything else (VC++6.0, others?) that's already not supported even by the company or organization that made it. -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/