[boost] Re: is_convertible for intel 7.1 and 8.0

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-19 18:14:50

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 01:44 PM 11/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>  >David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>  >
>  >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__ uses.
>
> 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.

It seems as though you're saying I can't fix the Intel problem
introduced by your patch so that my other library goes back to being
non-broken without also addressing all of these other compilers and
"taking is_convertible under my wing".

Since I don't have one of those (IBM) and only have an outdated
version of another (Borland) that doesn't seem reasonable to me.

It's easy enough to make sure that any changes made are limited to
Intel.  The patch you made broke is_convertible both for the type
traits tests and for its use in the iterator library; that's something
we know and can demonstrate.  It seems reasonable to me that until you
can give some indication of *specifically* what the patch was
"fixing", it should be rolled back.

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