stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: [Stdcxx Wiki] Update of "TargetPlatforms" by EricLemings
Date Wed, 07 May 2008 17:36:05 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:02 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Stdcxx Wiki] Update of "TargetPlatforms" by EricLemings
> 
> Travis Vitek wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> Subject: [Stdcxx Wiki] Update of "TargetPlatforms" by EricLemings
> >>
> >> Dear Wiki user,
> >>
> >> You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Stdcxx 
> >> Wiki" for change notification.
> >>
> >> The following page has been changed by EricLemings:
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/TargetPlatforms
> >>
> >> The comment on the change is:
> >> TargetPlatforms won't change between patch releases.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---------------
> >> - ||||||<tablestyle="text-align:center">'''Target platforms 
> >> for stdcxx 4.2.1'''||
> >> + ||||||<tablestyle="text-align:center">'''Target platforms 
> >> for stdcxx 4.2.x'''||
> >>  ||Category||Operating[[BR]]System||Compiler||
> >>  ||<rowspan=10>Primary||<rowspan=2>HP-UX 11i||HP aCC 6.16||
> >>  ||HP aCC 3.74||
> 
> This was meant to be a list of platforms specifically for 4.2.1,
> but I suppose calling it 4.2.x is fine too.
> 
> >>
> > 
> > This should probably be 4.2.2 [not 4.2.x], but we haven't really
> > discussed target platforms or release manager issues yet. 
> Perhaps this
> > is a good time to do so? Are there any compilers that were 
> not on the
> > 4.2.1 list but should be considered for the 4.2.2 list?
> 
> I don't expect us to be dropping any platforms but it would be
> nice to add more recent releases of the currently supported
> compilers, such as aCC 3.80 and gcc 4.3.

For a patch release?  I'd understand dropping support in major
release and possibly minor releases, and adding support in minor
releases, but I would think nothing would change, in terms of
supported platforms, between patch releases.  Not that there
would be a problem with adding support in patch releases also;
just seems like a distinguishing factor between minor and patch
releases.

> I don't know of any
> others. Are there any that we'd like to add? Maybe AIX 6 if
> and when we get it.

I noticed Intel C++ 10.1 is not on the list.

That brings up another related issue.  Do we need to identify
the exact version numbers?  Or does HP C++ 6.16 for example
mean that any other versions of the 6.x compiler are
intentionally NOT supported?

Brad.

Mime
View raw message