Yes, I don't think it makes sense to apply this work around, at least for the time being. I'll keep an eye on the gcc bug and try some other changes at some point.
Thanks.
Jacob Metcalfe <cubathy <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Thanks for the quick reply,
>
> 51566 does seem very similar. I do not experience the issue from bug 9810 in
> any of the compilers where I have managed to reproduce the bug - from a quick
> look it looks somewhat different - and unfortunately changes to
> access_specifier.hpp don't solve the issue (changing the inheritance modifier
> or access modifiers in the derived class also does not seem to help).
>
> I experimented with a few changes but the only case that got rid of the error
> was the obvious change of making node_type public in index_base.hpp.
I'm sorry this didn't work. Given that the error seems somewhat
spurious (i.e. hard to reproduce) I'm reluctant to apply the wholesale
workaround of changing node_type to public in index_base. If you
can live with applying this patch locally I'd rather leave it like that.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica Digital
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users