Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-01 14:32:52

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Maurer" <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>

> So the root of the problem is that, under certain circumstances,
> are both defined. The former causes <boost/limits.hpp> to define
> a std::numeric_limits<> template which does have compile-time
> so, strictly speaking, the BOOST_NO_LIMITS_COMPILE_TIME_CONSTANTS is
> wrong from then on.
> I believe the following section from config/suffix.hpp does not
> reflect the existence of <boost/limits.hpp>:
> //
> // If there is no numeric_limits template, then it can't have any
compile time
> // constants either!
> //
> # if defined(BOOST_NO_LIMITS) \
> # endif
> I've removed that section and I've made sure that
> config/stdlib/sgi.hpp undefines the "no-constants' when it
> defines the BOOST_NO_LIMITS macro. (That's the only place
> where BOOST_NO_LIMITS is defined.) Everyone should
> use #include <boost/limits.hpp> when looking for std::numeric_limits
> anyway. I've fixed the only places where this wasn't true
> in boost/detail/numeric_traits.hpp and boost/counting_iterator.hpp.
> The config documentation has been augmented to indicate that
> should never be used in client library code, but <boost/limits.hpp>
> in all cases.
> I hope this addresses all the issues.

I'm not sure; it's been so long...

I think this came up because of something *I* ran into, and I don't have
SGI. Isn't there an issue with GCC 2.95.2?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at