----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Kowalke"
would burden to provide an implementation for each toolset out there (with its own assembler syntax) on my shoulders - and I can imagine that I'll get emails like "... my toolset on this platform with this OS is very important - why are you so lazy not to provide an implementation for it? you must do it immediately ..." - even if I don't have the architecture/OS at home nore documenation or any information at my hand.
That is exactly what the rest of Boost has to do with C++ compilers. Workarounds and alternate implementations abound. I am fully aware of the burden this places on the typical Boost developer. Personally, I would prefer "unsupported" over fallback to a different toolset (or assumption of said toolset). Regards, Paul Mensonides