From: Guillaume Melquiond (gmelquio_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-08 04:27:35
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
> > I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
> How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the
> compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
> implementation isn't protected against ADL lookups where it needs to be.
Sorry, but what is adl? (I tried google on this one, but since there is a
c++ variant called adl, there was a lot of noise). I hope I don't
misunderstand your sentence: it seems it's not the compiler which is
broken but the library. So could you explain a bit more? We have tried to
make the library compliant and I don't want to leave such a fault in it.
Speaking about interval library tests, does anybody know why the windows
version of intel compiler fails all the tests although the linux version
has no problem? I'm not speaking about the missing rounding control (it's
probably just a change of macro definition) but about the other failure
(with equal), for example in interval/add. I see it gives the same error
as vc7; is there a compatibility mode between the two compilers for them
to fail at the same time?
(still trying to understand why the interval library has flooded the
regression log for openbsd...)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk