Re: [boost] [regex] patches for Tru64 and HP-UX

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-28 12:21:11

Boris Gubenko wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>>
>> Can you test the attached patch then?
>
> I've started full tests with *modified* patch: see below.
>
>> If you can assure me that the RW
>> version check is correct (presumably you will up the version number
>> if the issue gets fixed?),
>
> No, we won't. We don't change RW version number, on any platform, and
> if we start doing it now, it can break customer code expecting exact
> comparison to work.
>
> All we know about this RW bug is that:
>
> . it is not present in 0x0203     (RW library on Tru64 and AlphaVMS)
> . it is     present in 0x02020100 (RW library on HP-UX)
> . it is not present in 0x03000000 (RW library on iVMS)
>
> Tracking the range of RW libraries having this bug would be difficult
> and we cannot do it without the help from Rogue Wave Software, Inc.

Ah understood.

> Also, the RW version numbering is not always consistent: for example,
> the library with _RWSTD_VER == 0x0203 is rw libstd v2.0 while the
> library with _RWSTD_VER == 0x02020100 is rw libstd v2.2.

:-(

> For these reasons, I propose to restrict RW version check to a single
> library we know for sure has this bug:
>
> #if (BOOST_RWSTD_VER == 0x02020100) && defined(__EDG_VERSION__)
>
> This is the condition I'm running the tests with now.
>
> You've applied the patch for regex_traits.hpp (thank you!), but,
> unfortunately, you modified the __HP_aCC version check (in two
> places) so it is still broken:
>
> . the original code: !BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC,
> BOOST_TESTED_AT(55500)) . in my patch:
> !BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, < 60000) . in your patch:
> !BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, BOOST_TESTED_AT(60000))
>
> The condition should be either: "!BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <
> 60000)" or "BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, >= 60000)".

Oh shucks, and I got it right on cvs HEAD as well :-(

Fixed now, but would it help if we gave you cvs commit rights?  Or do you 
have them already?  Seems reasonable given the number of patches for aCC 
you've come up with.

John.