Re: [boost] RC_1_30_0 compile error with SGI MIPSpro Compilers

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:
>> /boost/boost/mpl/aux_/lambda_no_ctps.hpp.
>
> 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
> 127c127
> <         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
> 104c104
> <         >::template result_< Iterator,State,ForwardOp,next<Iterator> > impl_;
> ---
>>         >::template result_< Iterator,State,ForwardOp,mpl::next<Iterator> >
> impl_;
>
>> 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
> platforms.

Intended.  The Jamfile says:

    compile-fail ./as_to_python_function.cpp : $(PYTHON_PROPERTIES) ;

and the Jam output should say

    (failed-as-expected) ...
    **passed** ...

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? 

Yes.

> Don't you want to rename the test?

Not really ;-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com