From: Clif Houck (chouck_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-18 11:06:52
Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
> Any existing header order dependency would be news to me and I would be
> interested in seeing it fixed.
> Given that you've expended the effort to find the problem in a specific
> case, do you have any suggestion about what change should be made?
> Robert Ramey
I don't have a fix for it. The best suggestion I can offer is to analyze the
headers for a header include cycle and then break it. As long as it compiles and
de-serializes a 1.32 shared_ptr, it is sufficient for my purposes. I don't have
time to analyze the headers myself at the moment, but I hope I've given you
enough information to help you find the problem. Let me know if there's any more
information I can give you.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk