RE: [boost] operator++

From: Gary Powell (Gary.Powell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-12 16:54:45

Sorry that was gcc 2.95.2 My bad on version reporting, their bad on
compilation of ridiculous templates.

   -gary-

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David Abrahams [SMTP:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 12, 2000 3:05 PM
> To:	boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject:	Re: [boost] operator++
> 
> But using 2.95 when 2.95.2 is known to have fewer bugs is just asking for
> trouble.
> 
> why-would-anyone-do-that-ly y'rs,
> dave
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Powell" <Gary.Powell_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 5:30 PM
> Subject: RE: [boost] operator++
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >   Let me first apologize for sending raw code around. I hit reply when I
> > should have cut and pasted his address. So if anyone other then Andras
> is
> > interested in pursuing these proxies let me know and I'll send the
> updates
> > directly to you.
> >
> > Second. In my experimenting I have uncovered several annoying bugs in
> gcc
> > 2.95 which leads me to suspect using proxies will not gain any
> efficiency
> > unless your compiler is very good.
> >
> > bug 1 was duplicate construction,destruction, which in most cases can be
> > ignored in this case it did a double increment. Yikes! I made the copy
> > constructor private and it went away.
> >
> > bug2 was in the PointerProxy forwarding of operator*() for doing
> **(op++),
> > when I used the flag -03 the code works fine!.
> >
> > Anyway after more playing around with this, I think it works well enough
> for
> > those who don't care whether std::copy and their ilk work without a
> cast.
> >
> > your-real-not-a-proxy-template-happy-generic-programmer
> > wishing-gcc3.0-would-come-out-soon
> >
> >   -gary-
> >
> > gary.powell_at_[hidden]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>