Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-08 22:24:12

On Aug 4, 2008, at 3:27 AM, Markus Schöpflin wrote:

> we still should come to a decision regarding this issue. Can't we
> just make the change and check if there are any new test failures
> caused by it?
> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>> Daryle Walker wrote:
>>> What happens on systems, like mine, that already have sufficient
>>> recursive depth? Will specifying a maximum lower that the
>>> default actually lower the setting? If so, then this addition
>>> could be dangerous.
>> If your toolset supports setting the recursion depth (gcc, qcc,
>> acc, and hp_cxx at the moment), it will be set to the value
>> specified. So yes, it might lower the default setting.
>> But why should this be dangerous? The recursion depth needed to
>> compile a program is independent of the toolset, isn't it? So if
>> for a given compiler a value lower than the default value is used,
>> there should be no harm.

Is the depth actually independent of the toolset? Also, the number
of full test cases is dependent on how large uintmax_t is; what
happens when computers get bigger and/or use a different value
outside of the 8/16/32/64-bit mindset? Is the problem affecting
every test computer with these compilers, or just yours? If we use a
default value for a parameter, it can increase as the creator updates
the product; if we fix the value, then the burden of vigilance falls
to us.

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at