Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-22 09:49:34

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:

> Despite recent changes by Dave Abrahams, mpl::set is still
> failing in tru64cxx as shown in the last regression cycle:
> (Dave's works weren't intended to tackle this issue anyway,
> so this comes as no surprise.)
> The reason for the regression lies in recent changes to the
> associated toolset jam setting strict_ansi mode compilation.

Thanks for your help on the issue, Joaquin!


> A. Is there any reason why EDG is forced to use implementation #1?
> The CVS history doesn't shed much light about this.

I'll try and switch the implementation and see what happens.

> B. If A is unavoidable, can we macro-detect strict ansi mode so as to
> divert EDG+strict_ansi to implementation #2?

Yes, we can. In strict ansi mode, __STD_STRICT_ANSI or
__STD_STRICT_ANSI_ERRORS is defined. In relaxed ansi mode, __STD_ANSI is

> C. If B has negative answer, could we at least eliminate the null
> pointer
> in boost/mpl/aux_/ptr_to_ref.hpp (by using a dummy make_ptr function,
> perhaps)?

Not needed if A works out well, I think.

> Thank you,

Thank YOU!


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