From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 06:04:18
> I think problem is with BOOST_EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_TYPE(void)
> Simply removing that workaround macro from forced_return works for me as a
> dirty workaround.
> The question is, why BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ARGUMENTS on gcc
> 3.2.x? config/compiler/gcc.hpp comments about some unspecified bug, while
> documentation says only about VC6. The same bug in both compilers?
Kind of - the extended test case is in
> Diving more in config, little of compiler specific code pollutes
> config/suffix.hpp, shouldnt it go to compiler specific config instead?
Everything in suffix.hpp is generic macro workarounds - it's not dependent
upon specific compilers just whether the appropriate macro is defined.
I think you are going to have to use a dirty workaround here: check for gcc
before using BOOST_EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_TYPE(void)
in this particular case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk