According to this post, the final release is due in April.  It builds Boost.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=H_29a.1667%24_J4.125122719%40newssvr14.news.prodigy.com&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.lang.c%252B%252B.moderated%26start%3D25

In article <b4bahe$2i05$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark Evans says...
>
>According to this post, the final release is due in April.  It builds Boost.

MSVC had better build boost. If I had all the boost developers doing compiler specific code in what seems like every lib, every 100 code lines or so - just for MSVC - and it didn't compile, I would be *very* concerned.

Richard

Richard Grant wrote:

> 
> MSVC had better build boost. If I had all the boost developers doing compiler specific code in what seems like every lib, every 100 code lines or so - just for MSVC - and it didn't compile, I would be *very* concerned.
> 

They use it internally for testing.  The 7.1 compiler has been pretty much done for quite awhile now too, it's only being released in april to coincide with other things in the "Everett" release (sadly). If you have an MSDN account you can download a beta/release-candidate online.

"Garen" <garen_nospam_@wsu.edu> wrote in message news:b4go60$26s9$1@digitaldaemon.com
> They use it internally for testing.  The 7.1 compiler has been pretty
> much done for quite awhile now too, it's only being released in april
> to
> coincide with other things in the "Everett" release (sadly). If you
> have
> an MSDN account you can download a beta/release-candidate online.


There are differences between "pretty much done" and "done" the last compiler we accepted into Everett was in mid febuary which is less than a month ago.

-- 
Jeff Peil

Jeff Peil wrote:

> There are differences between "pretty much done" and "done" the last compiler we accepted into Everett was in mid febuary which is less than a month ago.

Whats your point?

"Garen" <garen_nospam_@wsu.edu> wrote in message news:b4jhqo$788$1@digitaldaemon.com
> Jeff Peil wrote:
>
>> There are differences between "pretty much done" and "done" the last compiler we accepted into Everett was in mid febuary which is less than a month ago.
>
> Whats your point?


It appears I left out a word which might have clarified "last compiler we accepted into Everett" should be "last compiler fix we accepted into Everett"

You seemed to be implying that we were merely sitting on the compiler and that it had been "pretty much done for quite awhile now"

The reality is that with the fixes in mid-Febuary (including a compiler fix,) we had to do another release candidate.  RC3, which then requires adequate testing time.

Believe it or not, we really wanted to be finished much earlier.

-- 
Jeff Peil

Jeff Peil wrote:

> It appears I left out a word which might have clarified "last compiler we accepted into Everett" should be "last compiler fix we accepted into Everett"
> 
> You seemed to be implying that we were merely sitting on the compiler and that it had been "pretty much done for quite awhile now"
> 

Yeah, thats the sentiment I've run into several times from MSers -- that it's release was being deferred to be sync'd with a whole group of other products.

Is that not so?

> The reality is that with the fixes in mid-Febuary (including a compiler fix,) we had to do another release candidate.  RC3, which then requires adequate testing time.
> 
> Believe it or not, we really wanted to be finished much earlier.

Me too. I really wanted 7.1 about 4+ years ago. :-)

"Garen" <garen_nospam_@wsu.edu> wrote in message news:b4k13r$g0i$1@digitaldaemon.com
> Yeah, thats the sentiment I've run into several times from MSers -- that it's release was being deferred to be sync'd with a whole group of other products.
>
> Is that not so?

Yes and no.  Yes in the sense that the feature work for the compiler has been done for a rather long time, and even in the sense that there were periods of time that I would have been confident in shipping the compiler because enough time had passed without finding a serious issue while we were looking, but at those same points in time I would not have been confident shipping some other part of Visual Studio (such as some piece of the IDE.) The fact is that syncing up everything in the Visual Studio box leads to more bake time than would otherwise be necessary (and so that extra time inevitably leads to the discovery of serious issues that really need to be fixed which leads to more bake time, etc.)  In the end the extra time required to put multiple languages/tools in the box really does lead to higher quality releases.

-- 
Jeff Peil

Jeff Peil wrote:

> Yes and no.  Yes in the sense that the feature work for the compiler has been done for a rather long time, and even in the sense that there were periods of time that I would have been confident in shipping the compiler because enough time had passed without finding a serious issue while we were looking, but at those same points in time I would not have been confident shipping some other part of Visual Studio (such as some piece of the IDE.) The fact is that syncing up everything in the Visual Studio box leads to more bake time than would otherwise be necessary (and so that extra time inevitably leads to the discovery of serious issues that really need to be fixed which leads to more bake time, etc.)  In the end the extra time required to put multiple languages/tools in the box really does lead to higher quality releases.
> 

Where's the 'no' part? :-)  Seems I wasn't misleading by your description. Except that the 'syncing' part isn't quite so artficial; as it depends on other interrelated stuff.  I think thats what you were trying to get at anyway.

"Garen" <garen_nospam_@wsu.edu> wrote in message news:b4mc2k$1147$1@digitaldaemon.com
> Jeff Peil wrote:
>
> Where's the 'no' part? :-)  Seems I wasn't misleading by your description. Except that the 'syncing' part isn't quite so artficial; as it depends on other interrelated stuff.  I think thats what you were trying to get at anyway.

The no part is that I wouldn't really consider things like the ide, or libraries like the crt, stl, mfc, or atl as seperate products.  For example, if the crt isn't in a shape where it can ship, then the compiler isn't either (particularly in the crt case since the compiler itself uses the crt.)

-- 
Jeff Peil