[boost] Re: is_convertible for intel 7.1 and 8.0

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-20 07:52:09

One more question: do you recall why you added tests for
__EDG_VERSION__ *as well as* for BOOST_INTEL ?

I need to get this stuff resolved so that we can begin the 1.31.0
release.

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 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.
>
> Hmm, my problem is that I'm updating that library now and all of the
> failures you've shown other than tricky_incomplete_type_test seem to
> be dependent on it.  Now the patch *breaks* my tests if I leave it in.
> Furthermore tricky_incomplete_type_test is a separate test precisely
> because it's a corner case which many compilers can't handle.  It's
> probably not a good idea to sacrifice is_convertible to get it to
> work.
>
>>  >  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.
>
> That's *very* strange because I certainly tested the iterators
> library on intel5, intel6, intel7 and intel8 when I committed it to
> the HEAD and *all* tests that were expected to pass, were passing.
>
> It would be very helpful if you could list some other tests which
> were not dependent on the iterators library.
>
>> I can send you the bjam log file from just before the patch was
>> applied if you'd like.
>
> It might be a good idea.
>
>> If rolling the patch back fixes some fails without adding any new
>> fails, then go for it!
>
> I think I still need more data :(

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