From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-27 16:45:03
David Abrahams wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>
>>AlisdairM wrote:
>>
>>>Fernando Cacciola wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>That is the correct version number, but shouldn't the test be
>>>
>>>BOOST_WORKAROUND( __BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x564) )
>>>
>>>Assuming Borland produce another compiler, ...
>>
>>Careful, here -- they did! Well, that is one with a higher version number ;-)
>>
>>
>>Latest official BCC shipped with BuilderX:
>>
>> __BORLANDC__ == 0x565
>>
>>Latest Builder6 upgrade pack:
>>
>> __BORLANDC__ == 0x564
>>
>>Kylix (didn't verify it myself - source: Boost.Config):
>>
>> __BORLANDC__ == 0x570
>>
>>It seems all are pretty close in terms of portability (for the former two I know
>>it and for Kylix it's another guess reading Boost.Config), so testing for below
>>0x600 is what you want, I guess (and above 0x551, reading the follow-up).
>
>
> Why test for below 0x600?
>
A pessimist guesstimation based on the tremendous ammount of bugfixes in the
recent past ;-) (excuse my sarcasm)...