On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:13 AM, John Maddock wrote:
I ported large parts of Boost 1.32 to embedded Visual C++ 4 some time ago. One of the major changes was because the included cross compilers reported _MSC_VER somewhere in between 1200 and 1202. IOW, a plethora of cases that checked ==1200 or >1200 failed to work for a few of them.
I already once submitted a patch, but it hasn't been incorporated yet, so here is one against CVS from this afternoon. The changes I made were mostly mechanical:
My mistake, I think I promised to apply that, but never got around to it.
MSC_VER <= 1200 -> MSC_VER < 1300 MSC_VER == 1200 -> MSC_VER < 1300 MSC_VER >= 1300 -> MSC_VER > 1200
That last one is wrong, I assume you meant to type:
MSC_VER >= 1200 -> MSC_VER > 1200
Some other changes were that I corrected a few comments that spoke of only VC6, but there are too many of them - I didn't get them all. Another change was that I prepared the autolinking feature for evc4.
The autolink changes look OK, but do they they match the names that bjam produces (assuming you can compile at all with bjam with eVC++)?
The changes to visualc.hpp have some misplaced #errors in there, in fact I don't think we should be adding #errors at all just because we can't define a meaningful BOOST_COMPILER macro (the macro is only for informative use after all).
I spotted a mistake in
RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/mpl/aux_/numeric_op.hpp,v
- && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, != 1200) + && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, < 1300)
should be:
- && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, != 1200) + && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, >= 1300)
In
RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/more/microsoft_vcpp.html,v
The additions:
+<tr> +<td>Microsoft Visual C++ 7.0 </td> +<td>1300</td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td>Microsoft Visual C++ 7.1 </td> +<td>1310</td> +</tr> +
Shouldn't be there (since the document describes bugs found in VC6 only).
Other than that the changes all look OK to me.
Doug, is it too close to release to apply blanket changes like this? I'm guessing that if they cause any problems they should show up PDQ.
It's really too late for this kind of far-reaching change. Any breakage with this patch will mean that we'll have to revert it, and it will cost us about 3 days given the current regression-test turnaround time. However, if someone can verify that there are no new regressions on VC 6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 before committing the patch, I'll allow it. Doug