Re: [boost] Proposed changes to operators.hpp

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-07 19:46:48

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Frey" <d.frey_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed changes to operators.hpp

> 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.

Sorry, you only have to pass the operators.hpp test suite. In the status
subdirectory:

    bjam -sTOOLS=... operators

> 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?

That's a big question, beyond the scope of your changes to operators.hpp.
Doug Gregor was doing something like that at
http://public.kitware.com/dashboard.php?name=boost, but I think that may
have languished.

> > 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.

Fine with me...

> 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?

Pass the tests you can run yourself, make the changes I requested, submit
any needed doc patches.

-Dave