Re: [boost] [math] common_factor_test

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-26 16:10:46

On 11/26/06 1:42 PM, "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The test fails on metacomm-v2 for msvc-6.5, 7.0 and for borland:
> 
>  http://tinyurl.com/y6otrh
>  http://tinyurl.com/ynz9z3
>  http://tinyurl.com/yxlcv7
> 
> The borland and 6.5 failures seem to be related to compiler problems that
> trigger *on the test itself*, so it might be possible to revive the test.
> 
> The 7.0 failures is something deeper inside the math library.

Borland seems to have a problem requiring explicitly declared
specialization.  I'm not sure that any workaround would be legal on any
other compiler.

For MSVC 6.5, the compiler is just fried here.  Pure virtual member
functions look like:

    virtual  void  my_pure_virtual() = 0;

Compile-time class-static built-in-integer constants look like:

    static  int const  my_value = 3;

>From the error messages, it looks like whenever the compiler sees a
class-static built-in-integer constant that evaluates to zero, it tries
grouping it as a pure virtual member function, which obviously fails because
the "= 0" is the only thing the two syntaxes have in common.  (It seems like
the creators gave the parser's pure-virtual part too much priority.)

For MSVC 7.0, it seems like the actual numeric test types aren't correctly
extracted from the MPL lists (signed_test_types and unsigned_test_types) by
the various BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE instances.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com