Re: [boost] [math] common_factor_test

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-28 00:42:19

Daryle Walker wrote:
> Is this for the 1.34 branch or the HEAD, or both?  (Vladimir copied
> the HEAD version to 1.34.)

1.34 branch.

> Looking at the diff, I noticed that you conditionally replace the
> custom types with (unsigned) long.  The point of those types is to
> use non-built-in types with or without numeric limits.  If they can't
> be supported, then those tests should be skipped completely, not
> substituted with (unsigned) long.

I know: however I had problems with the pp-logic, without that extra dummy 
type the mpl list terminated with a "," which wasn't legal code. OK let me 
try again, how about changing that section to:

typedef ::boost::mpl::list<
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
long long,
#elif defined(BOOST_HAS_MS_INT64)
__int64,
#endif
signed char, short, int, long
#ifndef BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
, MyInt1
#endif
> signed_test_types;

typedef ::boost::mpl::list<
#ifdef BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
unsigned long long,
#elif defined(BOOST_HAS_MS_INT64)
unsigned __int64,
#endif
unsigned char, unsigned short, unsigned, unsigned long
#ifndef BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_FRIENDS
, MyUnsigned1, MyUnsigned2
#endif
> unsigned_test_types;

Which puts things in a slightly unnatural order, but does what you want now 
I think?

John.