Re: [boost] Proposal to add smart_ptr to the boost library

From: David Maisonave (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 05:01:23

"David Maisonave" <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:<000101c6255d$eec482c0$0f00a8c0_at_david>...
> "Larry Evans" <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:<drk4c6$vu8$1_at_[hidden]>...
> > On 01/29/2006 06:15 PM, David Maisonave wrote:
> > > "Larry Evans" <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > > news:<drafuf$v06$1_at_[hidden]>...
> > [snip]
> > Do you mean the test driver code in libs/policy_ptr/test is very
> > confusing? In particular, do you find the std_ptr_shared_ptr_test.cpp 
> > confusing?
> 
> I could only answer that question if I could find that file. Where are 
> you getting this file from? I don't see a reference to it using the 
> following link: 
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/boost-sandbox/boost-sandbox/boos
> t/poli
> cy_ptr/policy/
> 
> Could you please provide a full link to this test?

Just found the link to it:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/boost-sandbox/boost-sandbox/libs/polic
y_ptr/test/

I downloaded both the test code, and the policy_ptr code, and the policy_ptr
code does not compile.
I tried compiling it on VC++ 7.1 and GNU 3.x, and both fail to compile the
code.

Boost\Policy_ptr\Policy\no_copy.hpp 
The above header gives a compile error for the following line:
#include "../always_false.hpp"  //(Line 12)

Boost\Policy_ptr\Policy\ref_counted.hpp 
The above header gives the following error:
Boost\Policy_ptr\Policy\ref_counted.hpp(155) : error C2061: syntax error :
identifier 'U'

Line 155 has the following:
BOOST_SP_DECLARE_TEMPLATE_FRIEND(U, ref_counted_, 2)

I also notice the following:
// In Boost\Policy_ptr\Policy\ref_linked.hpp Line 20
                            ref_node(void)
                                : prev_(this), next_(this)  { }

I would think the above code would result in undefined behavior, since a
pointer to an object that is not yet fully constructed is being pass to a
data member.

I'm not sure how the above code would have been tested, if it's not
compliable.