On 27/02/2019 18:35, degski wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 06:19, Gavin Lambert wrote:
It probably should be better about reporting use of unknown versions -- this is the third query I've seen about this recently.
We went there already, no? No, that's where we came from in fact. That [see those warnings pop up the whole time] wasn't very helpful either.
No, that was different. Previously Boost.Config would show a warning that it didn't know what the compiler was, which wasn't particularly helpful. (Although part of that was that it didn't identify the source of the message very clearly.) What I was suggesting is a warning/error from Boost.Build itself stating that the version explicitly specified in the user-config.jam file is "wrong", as this is a more direct configuration error. Having said that, what might be even better is that if a higher number than supported is specified, it (both Boost.Build and Boost.Predef/Config) could use the same settings as the highest one it does know about (but still use the specified version number in the library naming conventions, to maintain side-by-side deployment and reduce compatibility confusion). The results might still be less than ideal, but assuming compiler vendors maintain backwards compatibility (which granted is not always valid) it's probably a good start until Boost can be updated to properly recognise it.