Re: [boost] Proposed changes to operators.hpp

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-06 10:05:38

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 15:04, David Abrahams wrote:
> I've got no problem with accepting this patch, provided:
> 
> 1. It passes all the existing tests, with BOOST_NO_NRVO in both states

I have some problems in generating test results. It seems that the code
that is contained in the 1.28.0-archive doesn't match the code, that
generated the result pages. For me, the gcc 2.95.3 produces different
results, e.g. the shared_ptr_assign_fail-test fails to fail and there
are various other tests that are not contained in the delivered pages.
Besides that, it *seems* to me that the changes I provided didn't break
anything, but I'm not 100% sure because of the differences described
above. Probably the folks who are used to generate the compiler status
pages could check this out? Also, I don't have all compilers, OSes,
computers, etc. that are needed to generate all existing tests. What is
the expected solution to this? Will some test-code go into CVS and are
there people that have the resources to check the CVS-code on a nightly
base like the GCC-folks?

> 2. Aleksey and Daryle agree

It seems to me that Jemery Siek should also be asked about this, as he
provided some borland-specific work-arounds. I hope my new code doesn't
break new stuff as the Borland seems to be really picky from what I read
so far :)

> 3. The macros are prefixed with BOOST_
> 4. The backslashes are lined up for readability (emacs has a key which does
> this):

As I already said, this will be in the next version, as it is really
straight-forward and should yield any surprises.

Now, what are the next steps?

Regards, Daniel