From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-12 17:29:57
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:29:55PM -0700, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> I have a workaround which I want to apply to all known versions of GCC but not
> to future versions unless I later determine that it is necessary. Currently I
> have something like this:
> #if !defined(BOOST_INTEL) && ( BOOST_WORKAROUND(__GNUC__, <= 3) || \
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__GNUC__, == 4) && \
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__GNUC_MINOR__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0)) ) \
> but I can see from the regression reports that GCC 4.0 is not picking up the
> workaround code.
> What am I doing wrong?
I've wondered about BOOST_TESTED_AT before - I don't think it does
the right thing unless BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS is defined:
# ifdef BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS
# define BOOST_OPEN_PAREN (
# define BOOST_TESTED_AT(value) > value) ?(-1): BOOST_OPEN_PAREN 1
# define BOOST_TESTED_AT(value) != ((value)-(value))
Now forgive me if I'm being stupid, but unless you're compiling with
BOOST_WORKAROUND( __GNUC_MINOR__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0) )
tests __GNUC_MINOR__ != 0, which is exactly the opposite of what you are
trying to test.
Should BOOST_TESTED_AT be defined like this?
# define BOOST_TESTED_AT(value) <= (value)
Am I being stupid?
-- "There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded." - Mark Twain
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk