Le 07/06/2016 08:54, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Le 05/06/2016 01:01, Guillaume Munch a écrit :
4-11. Replace Boost features with std equivalents when possible. The
result is more consistency across plaforms and fewer dependencies on
Boost. More details down below. For your reading convenienc
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we actively use 1.34 features?
I seem to remember that the code had to be adapted between the two
versions... Anyway, I do not think that keeping boost in 1.6 corsts us
a lot. We can see what happens in the 1.7 timeframe.
JMarc
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:05:06PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > By the way, I think we should also remove boost from our source and just
> > say that we depend on boost >= 1.34.0 which is already one year old. I
> > checked the svn logs and we have no internal patch ap
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, I think we should also remove boost from our source and
> just say that we depend on boost >= 1.34.0 which is already one year
> old. I checked the svn logs and we have no internal patch applied
> since boost was upgraded, only some compi
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
By the way, I think we should also remove boost from our source and just
say that we depend on boost >= 1.34.0 which is already one year old. I
checked the svn logs and we have no internal patch applied since boost was
upgraded, only some compiler
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> By the way, I think we should also remove boost from our source and just
> say that we depend on boost >= 1.34.0 which is already one year old. I
> checked the svn logs and we have no internal patch applied since boost was
> upgraded, only some compiler warning fixes.
