Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-14 06:19:39

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> Markus Schöpflin ha escrito:
>> Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
>>> Now, rereading the document above, I realize that you're using
>>> the -timplicit_local template instantiation option, which "instantiate templates
>>> automatically, placing them in the output object with internal linkage", except
>>> for manually instantiated templates. My question is, why are you
>>> using such an option? Seems like the default -pt, as well as other options
>>> which guarantee external linkage, like -tused, -tall, etc. should work
>>> equally well. If you need to retain -timplicit_local for some reason, I
>>> can try to adjust the Jamfile for test_serialization so as to inhibit
>>> that option in this particular case.
>> Yes, I am aware that the current template instantiation model is not a good
>> choice, but IMO it's the best of the worst. :-(
>> Let me explain.
> [very precise explanation of the different instantiation options]
> OK, you obvioualy know the stuff :) Thanks for the explanation.

Sometimes I think I must be missing something really important, because
basically the whole thing is pretty unusable, IMHO.

>> To make a long story short, I maybe should reconsider -pt or -tweak
>> regardless of what I wrote above, because the test passes with both
>> instantiation models.
> I think globally changing to -pt is not worth the potential hassle: after all, it's
> just one test that's having problems. What I can do is tweak my Jamfile
> (you're using v1, right?) so as to use -pt in this particular case, only.
> Would you be available to locally test such a Jamfile?

I'm using both V1 and V2, but the release will be done with V2 I believe.

But I'm not sure if changing the instantiation model for just one test is a
good choice. Let me try the global switch to -pt first, maybe it will look
better this time...


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