Re: [boost] Re: boost.python warning on tru64cxx65 (was Re: name mangling scheme for tru64cxx65)

From: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve (rwgk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-31 11:53:58

--- Markus_Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> 
> > --- Markus_Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 
> > A year ago or so David and I spent a lot of time rearranging the include
> > statements in Boost.Python to avoid the warnings you reported. I have no
> idea
> > why they still appear in your build.
> 
> When looking at the include statements, I have no idea why these warnings 
> don't happen in _your_ build. :-)

Well, I am just glad they don't...

> Seriously, the problem is, that <limits.h> is included before <Python.h>. 
> <limits.h> itself includes <standards.h> which sets (for example) 
> _XOPEN_SOURCE to 500 as a default, if nothing is specified. But <Python.h> 
> includes <pyconfig.h> which sets _XOPEN_SOURCE to 600.
> 
> I know that boost.python is aware of the issue (see comments in 
> "python/detail/prefix.hpp") but I don't understand how the workaround is 
> supposed to work. :-( IMO, at least <pyconfig.h> _must_ be included before 
> _any_ system header. Everything else is asking for trouble...

True. I am wondering now why we didn't do this. I see that pyconfig.h in the
Python versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.4 at least doesn't include any other files. What
happens on your platform if you add #include <pyconfig.h> to the beginning of
prefix.hpp?

Ralf

                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com