Re: dlw_int/dlw_gcd review summary

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-09 14:52:29

on 10/9/01 6:33 AM, Helmut at helmut.zeisel_at_[hidden] wrote:

> --- In boost_at_y..., Daryle Walker <darylew_at_m...> wrote:
>> on 9/30/01 10:39 PM, David Abrahams at david.abrahams_at_r... wrote:
>> 
> 
>>> Ed Brey:
>>> 
>>> None of this code compiles with VC6sp5. As review manager, I suggest you
>>> /consider/ recruiting someone to help you port it. Although this compiler
>>> has numerous conformance problems, enough people use it that your library
>>> will have a considerably smaller audience than it otherwise might.
>> 
>> Since I don't use Windows (or an IBM-style PC), it's very hard for me to play
>> "guess the MSVC6 fix."  However, I want to support all the platforms that the
>> rational and pool libraries did, since I'm trying to replace the specialty
>> GCD/LCM routines they had.  So if someone could provide a fix that's close to
>> my style, that's OK.
> 
> I personally need only the run-time gcd. In the (older) version I tested the
> run-time gcd worked well under VC++ 6.0, I just switched off the compile-time
> specific code by
> 
> #ifndef BOOST_MSVC
> 
> I do not know whether compile-time gcd ever had worked under VC++. If my
> brute-force workaround is considered to be sufficient, I can help you to
> identify the respective code fragment(s).

I think the compile-time GCD from the pool library did have a version for
VC++, using a #define-blocked separate implementation.  It didn't work when
I tried adapting it to my style.  Could we see your suggestion?

>>> --------------- dlw_gcd -------------
[SNIP]
> The more severe restriction, IMHO, is that you
> require an absolute value of the same type as your ring elements,
> which indeed restricts your algorithm to integer-like classes.

The original versions weren't guaranteed for anything beyond integer-like
classes anyway.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com