From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-19 11:33:12
At 01:44 PM 11/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> At 03:59 AM 11/18/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>> >Do we need a different test? Was this added for intel/Linux?
>>> No, Win32. It was odd, IIRC, in that the change caused
>>> is_convertible_test to fail, but without the change perhaps a
>>> half-dozen other tests failed.
>>> I think I mentioned it at the time, but don't remember getting any
>> I'd like to know more about what was failing without it, because the
>> patch is breaking code which I need to work.
>In other words, it's breaking more than just is_convertible_test:
>is_convertible itself is effectively broken.
>Specifically, I'd like to find another way to fix the other problems
>which doesn't break is_convertible, but without more info it's pretty
>hard to do. Resolving the iterator library issues depends on this.
Someone needs to take is_convertible.hpp under their wing.
It isn't clear to me from reading the comments on the long chain of
#if/elif's which implementation is the one that is supposed to be standards
conforming. It would help if that were clearly indicated.
Some workarounds seem to be applied regardless of compiler
version. Particularly, __GNUC__, __IBMCPP__, and one of the __BORLANDC__
Once those aspects are on firmer ground it might be a bit easier to see
where Intel fits in. Anyone making changes needs to make sure the fixes
don't break apparently unrelated tests in other libraries.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk