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? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:06 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
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?
It was clear to me that the conformance of Boost.TR1 depends on the conformance of the respective Boost libraries. There is a "TR1 By Subject" page that seems to address this: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/doc/html/boost_tr1/subject_list.html Regards, Eugene Wee
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 It's quite out of date as it used the Boost 1.33.1 release, thus giving total failures for some tests such as unordered_set.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 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
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jamie Allsop skrev:
Ryan Gallagher wrote:
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?
Huh? http://www.dinkumware.com/ After the "Why we're the best" section there are 8 expandable items. Item 4: "Want a source license?" Lists the price at $2300. Whether that's a starting price, or when you buy bulk, I don't know... /Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJ++vQDgh1+bfwIY0RAnR0AJ9zRcZyxIqiOqKb1E2ttBW0R/8v2QCfWeyY n9JmGHxZLcskfvrJvL6uuJw= =mfme -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (5)
-
Brian Ravnsgaard Riis -
David Abrahams -
Eugene Wee -
Jamie Allsop -
Ryan Gallagher