Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-15 12:04:47

> I _think_ (correct me if I'm wrong) the problem is quite different and
> related to the portability issues of BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL with C string
> literals.
> The code above doesn't compile on VC 7.1, either. However, the
> regression tests don't show any problems with VC 7.1!! Thus, the reason
> for this issue is IMO that this code isn't instantiated at all for VC
> 7.1 (but it _is_ for Intel) and that's very similar to the

No. VC7.1 has exactly the same problem. The reason it works is that I tested
with this compiler and code actually looks like this:

template<typename T>
struct print_log_value {
    void operator()( std::ostream& ostr, T const& t )
        // Show all possibly significant digits (for example, 17 for 64-bit
        if( std::numeric_limits<T>::is_specialized &&
std::numeric_limits<T>::radix == 2 )
            ostr.precision(2 + std::numeric_limits<T>::digits * 301/1000);
        ostr << t; // by default print the value

> Here is a test case - it compiles on VC 7.1 and many others (but
> shouldn't) but doesn't compile on EDG:

Why do you think it shouldn't? numeric_limits should work for any type,
isn't it?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at