On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 21:59:15 +0200, "Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com> wrote:
Windows and Linux Intel compilers are quite different beasts (one pretending to be VC, the other GCC).
I know. Both pretending to be worse a compiler than itself :-/ But this is already managed by the config system, isn't it? Compiler and platform are dealt with orthogonally.
The planned obsolence of separate macros doesn't feel good to me.
Rogue Wave STL now lives under name stdcxx (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/stdcxx.html)
Copenhagen STL (http://www.cphstl.dk/) still shows some sign of life.
Yep. How much energy waste. And we don't have a conforming standard library yet.
I am not sure whether BOOST_CXX_DEC will be recognised after so many name changes.
Suggestion? :)
Possibly something for Win64 platform could be defined.
I didn't get this. Just to be sure we are on the same wavelength, so far I've only introduced macros for compilers. Also, I'm just considering compilers/libraries/platforms which are *already* supported by the config system. PS: no hope about having info for Green Hills: I wrote to their support and they forwarded the mail to an Italian company which manages user requests; they in turn replied with a copy of a page of the manual, but when I asked what the *format* for the version number was they didn't reply anymore. I got the definite impression they didn't know what they were talking about. -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ] [ resume: available on request ]