Re: [boost] [integer] Recent changes introduced failures on many platforms [PING]

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