Re: [boost] problem with WCHAR_MIN using gcc-4.1.1 on hpux11.11

From: Michael Haubenwallner (michael.haubenwallner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-21 10:43:15

On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 17:18 +0300, Moshe Matitya wrote:
> Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> > 
> > On HP-UX 11.11, there is a weird definition of WCHAR_MIN:
> > 
> > $ grep WCHAR_MIN /usr/include/*.h
> > /usr/include/wchar.h:#             define WCHAR_MIN  (wchar_t)0
> > 
> > When using gcc-4.1.1 on this platform, each time WCHAR_MIN is 
> > tested by preprocessor-directive against zero, g++ spits:
> > 
> > gcc-C++-action 
> > gcc-C++../../../bin/boost/libs/regex/build/libboost_regex.a/gc
> > c/debug/c_
> > gcc-C++regex_traits.o
> > In file included from ../src/c_regex_traits.cpp:29:
> > <snip>/boost_1_34_0rc/boost/regex/v4/regex_traits_defaults.hpp
> :87:94: error: missing binary operator before token "0"
> > 
> > This appears in
> >  boost/regex/v4/perl_matcher.hpp: line 53 and
> >  boost/regex/v4/regex_traits_defaults.hpp: line 87
> > 
> > Both of them are hidden for aCC with "#if 
> > !defined(__HP_aCC)", so maybe they should also be hidden for 
> > gcc on hpux ?
> > 
> > This problem does not appear with gcc-3.4.5 because of this:
> > 
> > gcc-3.4.5 (don't exactly know until which version) did not 
> > define _INCLUDE__STDC_A1_SOURCE as builtin, which enables 
> > that definition of WCHAR_MIN in /usr/include/wchar.h
> > 
> > Initially I had this with 1.33.0, but it is the same for rc-1.34.0.
> 
> 
> The ISO C++ Standard [3.9.1] and the ISO C Standard [7.18.3] both
> specify that WCHAR_MIN must be a "constant expression suitable for use
> in #if preprocessing directives".  HP/UX's definition of WCHAR_MIN does
> not conform with this requirement, as the preprocessor has no idea what
> to make of the expression "(wchar_t)0".
> 
> You can fix this as follows:
> 
> #include <wchar.h>
> #undef  WCHAR_MIN   /* (wchar_t)0 */
> #define WCHAR_MIN   0
> 

Er... I do not have this problem within my code, but while building
boost itself - where within boost is best place to do so ?

And should I file a gcc-bug ?

-haubi-