Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-15 15:52:05

"John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>is not defined for gcc. However, the following URL in the gcc bug
>>leads me to believe that the macro should be set on for the appropriate
>>versions of gcc. Matter of fact, I run with this problem myself and it
>>can be
>>workedaround with techniques similar to those employed for MSVC. See
>>for instance definitions of get() and workaround_holder in
> Thanks,
> The issue with gcc seems to be a little more specific than we normally set
> the macro for, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't set it. Am I
> right in thinking that this is specific to gcc 3.1 and 3.2? Also do you
> have a test case that can be added to the appropriate config test?

We need a more-specific macro. The problem is that when the function
*doesn't* have type and non-type parameter overloads, the workaround
breaks those very same versions of GCC. See

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at