[1.36.0] High priority compilers for this release?

[Beman Dawes]

Changes I'd like to see include:

* Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
* Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
about all we can afford.
* Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
about this compiler/platform.

Other suggestions?

In proposing additions, please remember that each added compiler costs
us resources such as developer's time, and that our regression report
processing system is easy to overload. Also, we won't accept a new
platform unless someone is willing to run *daily* regression tests for it.

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Gpderetta]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@...> wrote:

> Changes I'd like to see include:
>
>  * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>  * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>  about all we can afford.
>  * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>  about this compiler/platform.
>
>  Other suggestions?
>

gcc-4.3?

--
gpd
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Doug Gregor-3]

On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

> Changes I'd like to see include:
>
> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
> * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
> about all we can afford.
> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
> about this compiler/platform.
>
> Other suggestions?

Add GCC 4.3.0.

        - Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Amit-37]

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:

>
> Changes I'd like to see include:
>
> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
> about this compiler/platform.

Whaa?? I would suggest that ICL 10.1 should be supported. It is probably the most
conformant (and the best optimizing) compiler out there. Irritatingly, 10.0 had
introduced many regressions over 9.1, but with 10.1 things appear to be back on
track.

Mind you, to get the best optimizations, some esoteric flags have to be used;
also, by default the optimizer is set to favour speed at the cost of floating
point accuracy. I have played around a bit with optimization settings, and can
post the options I use to build boost components (since bjam does not include
aggressive optimization settings), if someone would find it useful.

Anyhow, fwitw, I strongly favour keeping ICL support - even if it is not used
much owing to not being free, it would function an examplar to other vendors.

Amit



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Andrey Semashev]

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Changes I'd like to see include:
>
> * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
> about all we can afford.

I'd like to kindly ask to continue supporting VC 7.1 at least for a
release or two. This compiler is still rather popular and is quite
capable to compile modern C++.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Michael Fawcett]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Andrey Semashev <andysem@...> wrote:

> Beman Dawes wrote:
>  > Changes I'd like to see include:
>  >
>
> > * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>  > about all we can afford.
>
>  I'd like to kindly ask to continue supporting VC 7.1 at least for a
>  release or two. This compiler is still rather popular and is quite
>  capable to compile modern C++.

I'll second that request.  We are still using 7.1 and 8.0 here, with
no plans (yet) to move to 9.0 this year.

--Michael Fawcett
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[John Maddock]

Amit wrote:

> Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>> about this compiler/platform.
>
> Whaa?? I would suggest that ICL 10.1 should be supported. It is
> probably the most conformant (and the best optimizing) compiler out
> there. Irritatingly, 10.0 had introduced many regressions over 9.1,
> but with 10.1 things appear to be back on track.
>
> Mind you, to get the best optimizations, some esoteric flags have to
> be used; also, by default the optimizer is set to favour speed at the
> cost of floating point accuracy. I have played around a bit with
> optimization settings, and can post the options I use to build boost
> components (since bjam does not include aggressive optimization
> settings), if someone would find it useful.
>
> Anyhow, fwitw, I strongly favour keeping ICL support - even if it is
> not used much owing to not being free, it would function an examplar
> to other vendors.

I'm inclined to agree to that: Intel have been extremely responsive in the
past in responding to compiler issues relating to Boost, and given the level
of conformance offered by this compiler, does it really soak up that much
time to officially support it?  Incidently, it's good to have at least one
EDG based front end in our official support list, even if it does emulate
the MSVC bugs ;-)

John.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Joaquin M Lopez Munoz]

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:

>
> Changes I'd like to see include:
>
> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
> * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
> about all we can afford.
> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
> about this compiler/platform.
>
> Other suggestions?
>
> In proposing additions, please remember that each added compiler costs
> us resources such as developer's time, and that our regression report
> processing system is easy to overload. Also, we won't accept a new
> platform unless someone is willing to run *daily* regression tests for it.

I'd like to bring the following idea for discussion: Besides
mainstream platforms, additional, more exotic platforms can be
provisionally included into the supported set *provided that*
they are associated to a volunteer *platform champion*. A platform
champion will

* Make sure there's a daily regression test for the platform
(either run by her or some other party).
* Continuously scans the platform-specific regressions and
trac tickets in every Boost library, studies them and proposes
tried patches. For a reasonably conformant compiler, this is
actually not as hard to do as it might sound, as many fixes
(in my experience) are very local in nature and can be fixed
without having any deep knowledge of the code being fixed. I've
done my share of fixing for MSVC 6.0 and can attest this. The
point is that in fixing platform-specific glitches it is way
more valuable to have someone with knowledge of and access to
the platform than someone with knowledge of the lib itself.
* Is available for answering question on the platform and try
tests and stuff on demand.

If the champion resigns or is not able to keep a high quality
level on the platform, the platform is dropped.

Does this make sense?

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Gubenko, Boris]

John Maddock wrote:
> [...]                 Incidently, it's good to have at least one
> EDG based front end in our official support list, even if it does
> emulate
> the MSVC bugs ;-)

HP aC++ (toolset acc) is EDG based compiler. So is cxx on Tru64,
but the latter is not an officially supported compiler in 1.35
(it is in 1.34).

Boris

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Gubenko, Boris]

John Maddock wrote:
> [...]                 Incidently, it's good to have at least one
> EDG based front end in our official support list, even if it does
> emulate
> the MSVC bugs ;-)

HP aC++ (toolset acc) is EDG based compiler. So is cxx on Tru64,
but the latter is not an officially supported compiler in 1.35
(it is in 1.34).

Boris

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Felipe Magno de Almeida]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Semashev <andysem@...> wrote:

> Beman Dawes wrote:
>  > Changes I'd like to see include:
>  >
>
> > * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>  > about all we can afford.
>
>  I'd like to kindly ask to continue supporting VC 7.1 at least for a
>  release or two. This compiler is still rather popular and is quite
>  capable to compile modern C++.

Me too.
There isn't even much difference from MSVC 7.1 and the new 9.0.
Most people don't find compelling to upgrade just to get NRVO basically.

Thanks,
--
Felipe Magno de Almeida
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Felipe Magno de Almeida]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Felipe Magno de Almeida
<felipe.m.almeida@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Semashev <andysem@...> wrote:
>  > Beman Dawes wrote:
>  >  > Changes I'd like to see include:
>  >  >
>  >
>  > > * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>  >  > about all we can afford.
>  >
>  >  I'd like to kindly ask to continue supporting VC 7.1 at least for a
>  >  release or two. This compiler is still rather popular and is quite
>  >  capable to compile modern C++.
>
>  Me too.
>  There isn't even much difference from MSVC 7.1 and the new 9.0.
>  Most people don't find compelling to upgrade just to get NRVO basically.

Sorry to reply to myself, but I only second this request *if* there's
a regular regression tester to this platform. If there's enough
testing, I don't see why we should drop support for it.

Regards,
--
Felipe Magno de Almeida
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Loïc Joly-2]

Beman Dawes a écrit :
> Changes I'd like to see include:
>
> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>  

I think adding a version of VC++9.0 with microsoft optional TR1
implementation would also be quite interresting.
--
Loïc Joly


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@...> wrote:
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>>  * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>>  * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>>  about all we can afford.
>>  * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>>  about this compiler/platform.
>>
>>  Other suggestions?
>>
>
> gcc-4.3?

Yes. Specifically the current release, 4.3.0.

In general, we want to always be targeting the current release for a
compiler, as of at the start of our release cycle.

--Beman




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

Doug Gregor wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>> * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>> about all we can afford.
>> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>> about this compiler/platform.
>>
>> Other suggestions?
>
> Add GCC 4.3.0.

Yes.

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Lars Gullik Bjønnes]

Doug Gregor <dgregor@...> writes:

| On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

>
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>> * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>> about all we can afford.
>> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>> about this compiler/platform.
>>
>> Other suggestions?
>

| Add GCC 4.3.0.

I would really like to see that targeted for 1.35.1.

(Unless you really, really speed up releases...)

--
    Lgb

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

Amit wrote:

> Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
>
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>> about this compiler/platform.
>
> Whaa?? I would suggest that ICL 10.1 should be supported. It is probably the most
> conformant (and the best optimizing) compiler out there. Irritatingly, 10.0 had
> introduced many regressions over 9.1, but with 10.1 things appear to be back on
> track.
>
> Mind you, to get the best optimizations, some esoteric flags have to be used;
> also, by default the optimizer is set to favour speed at the cost of floating
> point accuracy. I have played around a bit with optimization settings, and can
> post the options I use to build boost components (since bjam does not include
> aggressive optimization settings), if someone would find it useful.
>
> Anyhow, fwitw, I strongly favour keeping ICL support - even if it is not used
> much owing to not being free, it would function an examplar to other vendors.

We would need a volunteer or volunteers to (1) do the testing, and (2)
work with Intel and Boost developers to ensure that bugs get fixed.

Sean Huang has been testing the trunk, and I've been testing the release
branch. I really want to turn the release branch testing over to someone
else, and find someone else to pester Intel and/or Boost developers when
things break.

So we basically need an Intel/Windows volunteer.

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

John Maddock wrote:

> Amit wrote:
>> Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
>>
>>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>>
>>> * Drop the Intel compiler on Windows. Not enough people seem to care
>>> about this compiler/platform.
>> Whaa?? I would suggest that ICL 10.1 should be supported. It is
>> probably the most conformant (and the best optimizing) compiler out
>> there. Irritatingly, 10.0 had introduced many regressions over 9.1,
>> but with 10.1 things appear to be back on track.
>>
>> Mind you, to get the best optimizations, some esoteric flags have to
>> be used; also, by default the optimizer is set to favour speed at the
>> cost of floating point accuracy. I have played around a bit with
>> optimization settings, and can post the options I use to build boost
>> components (since bjam does not include aggressive optimization
>> settings), if someone would find it useful.
>>
>> Anyhow, fwitw, I strongly favour keeping ICL support - even if it is
>> not used much owing to not being free, it would function an examplar
>> to other vendors.
>
> I'm inclined to agree to that: Intel have been extremely responsive in the
> past in responding to compiler issues relating to Boost, and given the level
> of conformance offered by this compiler, does it really soak up that much
> time to officially support it?  Incidently, it's good to have at least one
> EDG based front end in our official support list, even if it does emulate
> the MSVC bugs ;-)

Would you like to volunteer for testing and followup:-?

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Felipe Magno de Almeida
> <felipe.m.almeida@...> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Semashev <andysem@...> wrote:
>>  > Beman Dawes wrote:
>>  >  > Changes I'd like to see include:
>>  >  >
>>  >
>>  > > * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>>  >  > about all we can afford.
>>  >
>>  >  I'd like to kindly ask to continue supporting VC 7.1 at least for a
>>  >  release or two. This compiler is still rather popular and is quite
>>  >  capable to compile modern C++.
>>
>>  Me too.
>>  There isn't even much difference from MSVC 7.1 and the new 9.0.
>>  Most people don't find compelling to upgrade just to get NRVO basically.
>
> Sorry to reply to myself, but I only second this request *if* there's
> a regular regression tester to this platform. If there's enough
> testing, I don't see why we should drop support for it.

Testing is the issue. We need reliable *nightly* testing on both trunk
and release to seriously target a compiler, and we just haven't been
getting that for 7.1.

Rene and others did a lot of work during the last release cycle to make
testing more reliable and easier to run. So if someone wants to
contribute to Boost, running regression tests is easier than ever.

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

Boris Gubenko wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>> [...]                 Incidently, it's good to have at least one
>> EDG based front end in our official support list, even if it does
>> emulate
>> the MSVC bugs ;-)
>
> HP aC++ (toolset acc) is EDG based compiler. So is cxx on Tru64,
> but the latter is not an officially supported compiler in 1.35
> (it is in 1.34).

Boris, which HP compiler/platform combinations would you like to support
for 1.36.0? I'm willing to support two or even three platforms if you
can contribute both trunk and release testing for them.

--Beman

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost