If you look at the patch, you will see that most changes are explained by removing '#if _MSC_VER==1200' in favour of '#if _MSC_VER<1300'. At first glance those are not really equivalent, but there are some considerations that will make it sensible: - if (which I doubt will ever happen) there come any updates to those compilers they will still have version numbers < 1300 - if VC6 and similar suffer a defect, chances are good that older compilers also suffer the same problems - there is a line that generates an error anyways should you try to compile boost code with <1200, older compilers are simply not supported.
I think those changes all look OK, if you have cvs access, I don't see why you shouldn't commit them
I noticed that some places use BOOST_WORKAROUND while others use _MSC_VER directly. For #pragma once that makes still sense, since you don't want to first include the header for the macro, but in other cases I'm not so sure. Is there a tendency to uniformly use BOOST_WORKAROUND? If so, and since I'm touching a lot of those checks already, should I replace those?
Not sure, some of those _MSC_VER checks are actually for Intel compilers, probably best to leave it alone for now.
The change in boost/detail/lwm_win32.hpp is something where I don't claim I really understand what it does. Removing it breaks compilation, I don't know how to test if it really works.
Talk to Peter Dimov: post a message with a subject line he'll notice (one that mentions the file by name). If the code links OK then I guess it should be alright: the workaround relies on _InterlockedExchange being a compiler intrinsic.
The changes in boost/function/function_template.hpp are something that shouldn't break anything, except if the brackets where in fact an undocumented workaround for some other bug....
They are: I believe these are a Borland specific workaround, a better approach, and one which should work for both compilers is to use: typedef typename ct_if< ::boost::is_void<R>::value, For these cases (note the leading :: and the space after the <, both are important!).
Working on this, I noticed that some files I checked out of CVS were write protected!? Is that just my setup, intentional or by accident? I didn't investigate further.
It happens to me as well. John.