From: Giovanni Bajo (giovannibajo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-27 13:42:20
Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> There was a recent change to the config/compiler/intel.hpp file in
> order to change (one more time) the way the detection of wchar_t works.
I did it, and discussed it on this very list.
> So I've committed a trivial fix to CVS head. However it was a bit
> annoying to note that a patch had been committed to such an important
> place carefreely (otherwise the bug would have been found). This is my
> first concern: the configuration of a compiler had been changed
> without even being tested.
You're implying way too much. There was a typo on my part, sure, but it wasn't
detected under Windows. I *did* test it, and we did discuss the patch on the
list. I never commit untested patches.
> Second concern: since the patch was not tested on this
> compiler/platform configuration, is it sure it behaves sanely?
Please, review our discussion on the topic.
> Sincethere was a lot of
> changes in this area, shouldn't a specific test file be added in order
> to finally ensure the correct detection of wchar_t? I can also
> directly exercise some testcases if provided; I can test with ICC 7
> and 8 for Linux.
We need to do a detection through the preprocessor.
> Finally, my third concern: shouldn't such changes be committed to the
> release branch since they directly involve the configuration of an
> existing compiler?
Again, please review the discussion. I told that I would commit it to the
release branch after a few days, to not destabilize the branch. In fact, I was
awaiting fallouts on different platforms, just like the one you fixed. If I had
committed it to the release branch immediatly, I would have broken it as well.
> Sorry for this long mail, but since release time draws near, I wanted
> to point out this problem.
Thank you for the fix.
-- Giovanni Bajo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk