Re: [pooma-dev] [RFC] Removing workarounds for pre-ISO C++ compilers

[Jeffrey D. Oldham]

Richard Guenther wrote:

> Would there be any objections to the removal of the workarounds for 
> pre-ISO C++ compilers like
>
> checking whether we have complete IO manipulators... yes
> checking whether we have a standard iosbase class... yes
> checking whether we have sstream... yes
> checking whether we have a complex inside std... yes
> checking whether we support dependent template arguments... yes
> checking whether we support delete operators with placement 
> argument... yes
> checking whether we handle default args to template functions 
> correct... yes
> checking whether we have std::ios_base::fmtflags... yes
> checking for support of templated friends... yes
> checking numer of template arguments of std::ostream_iterator... 1
> checking for std::min(), std::max()... yes
> checking for standard conforming iterators... yes
>
> Pretty much any up-to-date compiler handles these correctly today.  
> Also not all such uses are guarded by the workarounds and I lack a 
> dumb enough compiler to check their correct usage.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Richard.

There are still a lot of gcc 2.95 and related compilers in use today.  I 
prefer to leave them but let them rot unless there is a compelling 
reason to remove them now.

--
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden