Re: SunPro CC & less<smart_ptr<T> >

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-07 14:09:53

--- In boost_at_y..., "George A. Heintzelman" <georgeh_at_a...> wrote:
> 
> Hi boosters,
> 
> I'm doing some work trying to get various boost things working for 
> SunCC, version 5.3. As I find and hopefully fix things, I'll let 
you 
> know.

I was able to compile most of the staff using SunCC 5.3. What do you 
need?

> 
> This message is about the fact that even in the most recent 
versions of 
> SunCC, BOOST_NO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION is set. There's a comment by 
> Jens Maurer that:
> 
>        // SunPro 5.3 has better support for partial specialization,
>        // but breaks when compiling std::less<shared_ptr<T> >
> 
> In hopes of getting rid of this limitation, I looked carefully at 
that 
> particular line, and I found that SunCC compiles it just fine if we 
> explicitly qualify the call to std::less as below:
> 
> template<typename T>
>   struct less< boost::shared_ptr<T> >
>     : binary_function<boost::shared_ptr<T>, boost::shared_ptr<T>, 
bool>
>   {
>     bool operator()(const boost::shared_ptr<T>& a,
>         const boost::shared_ptr<T>& b) const
>       { return std::less<T*>()(a.get(),b.get()); }
>   };
> 
> So I ask -- is there a reason *not* to qualify it? Is the intention 
to 
> get argument-dependent-lookup if the user has provided 
NS::less<NS::T *>
> ? If so, would
> 
> template<typename T>
>   struct less< boost::shared_ptr<T> >
>     : binary_function<boost::shared_ptr<T>, boost::shared_ptr<T>, 
bool>
>   {
>     bool operator()(const boost::shared_ptr<T>& a,
>         const boost::shared_ptr<T>& b) const
>       { using std::less; return less<T*>()(a.get(),b.get()); }
>   };
> 
> (which also works on this compiler) be better? Both fixes also 
compile 
> the regression for g++ on this platform, which (unfortunately) is 
all I 
> have access to.

Turn BOOST_NO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION on. It's working in majority 
cases. 

> 
> George Heintzelman
> georgeh_at_a...

Gennadiy.