From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-07 18:14:30
"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk_at_[hidden]> writes:
> --- David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > David and Aleksey, could you please review the patches and tell
>> > me which are OK to check in? -- I am a bit worried about the
>> > two patches in the mpl/aux_/preprocessed directory. Are these
>> > files auto-generated? Are there master files that should be
>> > patched instead?
>> Well, in addition, I believe:
> OK, here are the two additional patches:
> Index: lambda_no_ctps.hpp
> RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/mpl/aux_/lambda_no_ctps.hpp,v
> retrieving revision 1.7
> diff -r1.7 lambda_no_ctps.hpp
> < typedef protect< BOOST_PP_CAT(bind,i)<
>> typedef mpl::protect< BOOST_PP_CAT(bind,i)<
> Index: iter_fold_if_impl.hpp
> RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/mpl/aux_/iter_fold_if_impl.hpp,v
> retrieving revision 1.5
> diff -r1.5 iter_fold_if_impl.hpp
> < >::template result_< Iterator,State,ForwardOp,next<Iterator> > impl_;
>> >::template result_< Iterator,State,ForwardOp,mpl::next<Iterator> >
>> The patch that worries me
>> the most is the one in is_base_and_derived.hpp, but not seriously:
>> it's just that it should probably be checking __EDG_VERSION instead of
>> looking for the sgi compiler.
> I don't know what EDG version to use in the #ifdef.
It's easy enough to test it with a little program that prints the
value you have.
> I'll leave this as is for now. If someone else has the same problem
> on a different platform we can generalize.
Doesn't worry me too much, but it's surely not SGI-specific.
>> Otherwise, they all look fine to me.
> OK, I'll wait for a word from Aleksey. If he is happy I'll check in the eight
> patches, both into the trunk and the RC_1_30_0 branch.
That looks good.
> BTW: David, compilation of as_to_python_function.cpp fails on all
Intended. The Jamfile says:
compile-fail ./as_to_python_function.cpp : $(PYTHON_PROPERTIES) ;
and the Jam output should say
unless -d0 caused that to be suppressed, in which case we should
remove the -d0 I guess.
> "hopefully_illegal" suggests that this is expected, but then again the test is
> not called xxx_fail.cpp like the other tests that are expected to fail. Is
> everything all right here?
> Don't you want to rename the test?
Not really ;-)
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk