Re: [boost] Re: is_convertible for intel 7.1 and 8.0

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-19 15:51:51

At 06:14 PM 11/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
 >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".

No, the two comments were unrelated.

 >Since I don't have one of those (IBM) and only have an outdated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.

Each of the comments above are separate. It should be possible to comment 
which implementation is the standards conforming one without dealing with 
the GNU, IBM, and Borland issues.

 >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.

No, iterators was one of the libraries that were reporting failures until 
the patch was applied. The patch cleared Intel errors in multiple 
libraries. See list below.

 >  It seems reasonable to me that until you
 >can give some indication of *specifically* what the patch was
 >"fixing", it should be rolled back.

Before the patch, a number of tests were failing. The first error message 
was:

C:\boost\site\boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp(173): error: incomplete 
type is not allowed

Tests that failed before the patch included:

   utility/reverse_iterator_example.cpp
   utility/indirect_iterator_example.cpp
   utility/counting_iterator_example.cpp
   iterator\test\reverse_iterator_test.cpp
   iterator\test\filter_iterator_test.cpp
   iterator\test\indirect_iterator_test.cpp
   iterator\test\iterator_adaptor_test.cpp
   iterator\test\iterator_adaptor_cc.cpp
   iterator\test\is_convertible_fail.cpp
   type_traits\test\tricky_incomplete_type_test.cpp
   multi_array/test/resize.cpp
   multi_array/test/stl_interaction.cpp
   etc.

I can send you the bjam log file from just before the patch was applied if 
you'd like.

If rolling the patch back fixes some fails without adding any new fails, 
then go for it!

--Beman