Re: [boost] Any sunpro experts out there?

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 20:20:43

Timo Geusch wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't so it's not quite that easy a fix. Several
> tests don't compile and a couple of those that do, fail.
>
> I've put up the output of a test run at
> http://www.unixconsult.co.uk/programming/type_traits_test_sunpro.out.
> Please note that these currently are just the build failures as I
> thought that it may be better to fix those first and then address the
> test failures seperately.

Actually I'm less worried about those that don't compile, than those that 
compile and do the wrong thing: for example is_empty<function-type>::value 
being *true*, that could be really really bad, and I'm frankly at a complete 
loss to understand how that could possibly happen.  Other failures like the 
is_abstract ones are expected if BOOST_NO_IS_ABSTRACT is set: which it is 
for compiler versions <= 0x580, so it looks like maybe the compiler version 
hasn't been updated from previous releases?  The remaining failures are all 
function type related: looks like sunpro doesn't like partial 
specialisations on pointers to functions, or maybe something has gone wrong 
before the metacode gets that far it's impossible to say.

Anyway I'm going to contact Simon Atanasyan direct and see if he has any 
suggestions.

John.