Re: [Stlport-devel] Ancient compilers

[<fra...@fr...>]

Well, I should have asked you what you consider as a valid workaround, 
is there any ?

We will need time to consider each workaround and see which one is 
really suspicious.

I can already tell you that:

- _STLP_NO_IEC559_SUPPORT do not exists anymore
- _USE_OLD_RW_STL is not an STLport macro and change the way Borland native headers are included.


Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 23:55, François Dumont wrote:
>   
>>     Rather than listing compilers to remove support for I would prefer a 
>> list of workaround you would like to remove. Removing some files in 
>> stlport/stl/config won't really make STLport more clean.
>>     
>
> Yes, you totally right, I mean workarounds, not stlport/stl/config :-)
>
> Suspicious workarounds are:
>
> _STLP_NO_TEMPLATE_CONVERSIONS
> _STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_CLASSES
> _STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
> _STLP_NO_FUNCTION_TMPL_PARTIAL_ORDER
> _STLP_NO_FRIEND_TEMPLATES
> _STLP_HAS_NO_NAMESPACES
> _STLP_NO_METHOD_SPECIALIZATION
> _STLP_NO_CLASS_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
> _STLP_STATIC_CONST_INIT_BUG
> _STLP_NO_ARROW_OPERATOR
> _STLP_LIMITED_DEFAULT_TEMPLATES (?)
> _STLP_MSVC50_COMPATIBILITY
> _STLP_DONT_USE_EXCEPTIONS   (?)
> _STLP_USE_OLD_HP_ITERATOR_QUERIES
> _STLP_NO_TYPENAME_IN_TEMPLATE_HEADER
> _STLP_DEF_CONST_PLCT_NEW_BUG (?)
> _STLP_NO_TYPENAME_ON_RETURN_TYPE (?)
> _STLP_NO_QUALIFIED_FRIENDS (?)
> _STLP_NO_IEC559_SUPPORT (?)
> _STLP_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_KEYWORD
> _STLP_DONT_SUPPORT_REBIND_MEMBER_TEMPLATE
> _STLP_NO_MOVE_SEMANTIC
> _STLP_DONT_RETURN_VOID
> _STLP_DONT_USE_BOOL_TYPEDEF
> _STLP_NO_USING_FOR_GLOBAL_FUNCTIONS
> _STLP_DONT_SIMULATE_PARTIAL_SPEC_FOR_TYPE_TRAITS
> _STLP_DONT_USE_PARTIAL_SPEC_WRKD  (?)
> _STLP_QUALIFIED_SPECIALIZATION_BUG (?)
> _STLP_NON_TYPE_TMPL_PARAM_BUG (?)
> _STLP_THROW_RETURN_BUG (?)
> _STLP_DEF_CONST_DEF_PARAM_BUG
> _STLP_USE_NO_IOSTREAMS
> _STLP_NO_BOOL
> _STLP_NO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION_SYNTAX
> _STLP_BROKEN_USING_DIRECTIVE
> _STLP_NO_AT_MEMBER_FUNCTION
> _USE_OLD_RW_STL (?)
> _STLP_NO_CONTAINERS_EXTENSION
>
>   
>>     MSVC compilers after VC6 and Borland C++ compilers are well 
>> supported so no reason to remove it.
>>     
>
> I.e. VS > 6.0, right? Only 7.0 is suspicious for me (looks like 'transient' compiler).
>
> What versions of Borland? What Borland revisions free from tricks like
> #if !defined (__BORLANDC__) || (__BORLANDC__ != 0x560)
> typedef typename __type_traits<_Src>::has_trivial_assignment_operator _Tr1;
> #else
> typedef typename _UnConstPtr<_Src*>::_Type _Tp3;
> typedef typename __type_traits<_Tp3>::has_trivial_assignment_operator _Tr1;
> #endif
> and other, mainly coupled with _STLP_CLASS_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION.
>
>   
>> DMC is not as clean but it doesn't  
>> hurt neither. All those compilers are contributing in making STLport a 
>> portable library.
>>     
>
> ... well, some has most contribution in making STLport dusty.
>
>   
>> Petr Ovtchenkov wrote:
>>     
>>> In accordance with https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1611125&group_id=146814&atid=861375
>>> I want to remove support of old compilers in STLPort 5.2:
>>>
>>>   - Visual C++ 6.0 mainstream support ended on September 30, 2004
>>>     (commercial compiler, 3 years since RIP)
>>>
>>>   - gcc 2.95.x (2.95.3 released March 16, 2001) --- very stable, but not good for
>>>     modern C++; you has newer free alternative in any case;
>>>
>>>   - gcc 3.0 (3.0.4 released February 20, 2002) --- not stable compiler;
>>>     strongly not recommended for modern C++;
>>>
>>>   - gcc 3.1 (3.1.1 released July 25, 2002) --- not stable compiler;
>>>     strongly not recommended for modern C++;
>>>
>>>   - gcc 3.2 (3.2.3 released April 22, 2003) -- not stable compiler;
>>>     strongly not recommended for modern C++;
>>>
>>>
>>> Candidates: gcc 3.3 (3.3.6 released May 3, 2005);
>>>
>>> What state of Visual C++ 7.0, 7.1?
>>>
>>> I have question about Digital Mars. See DMC License (http://www.digitalmars.com/download/dmcpp.html)
>>> [see EOL date]:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> The Software is not generally available software. It has not undergone testing
>>> and may contain errors. The Software was not designed to operate
>>> after December 31, 1999. It may be incomplete and it may not function properly.
>>> No support or maintenance is provided with this Software. Do not install
>>> or distribute the Software if you are not accustomed to using or distributing
>>> experimental software. Do not use this software for life critical applications.
>>> </snip>
>>>
>>> Also, I have questions about Borland C++ (Turbo C++ again?). What state of this compilers?
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>