Subject: Re: [boost] [proto] _value doesn't enforce zero arity
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 21:45:47
Dave Jenkins wrote:
> This flag sounds the same as the BOOST_COMPILE_TIME_DEBUG flag
> proposed by Eric
> Niebler here: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2009/01/44451.php.
> Joel de Guzman suggested making it an integer (0 == no CT debug, 1..3
> CT debug levels) here:
> My thought is to have one of the integer debug levels enable
> compile-time tracing of
> "interesting" template instantiations using Steven Watanabe's
> For this to work, the library author would have to mark the "interesting"
> template classes and functions with "PROFILE_TRACER()" and bypass
> Steven's preprocessing stage. Is this workable and/or a good idea?
I've been slowly working on getting the call graph info working.
In order to do this correctly I have to parse the warning backtrace.
This mechanism I am using will break if not every template instantiation
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk