Re: [boost] [config] gcc and <unordered_set> vs <ext/hash_set>

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] gcc and <unordered_set> vs <ext/hash_set>
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-16 15:48:45

on Tue Dec 16 2008, Juergen Hunold <juergen.hunold-AT-ivembh.de> wrote:

> Hi John !
>
> On Tuesday 16 December 2008, John Maddock wrote:
>> Folks, Dave A. asked for a config macro to detect the presence of std
>> conforming <unordered_set> and <unordered_map>.
>
> This would be great.
>
>> However, I've run into an unexpected issue: it appears that with
>> gcc-4.3.x you cannot include both <unordered_set> and <ext/hash_set>
>> as attempting to do so leads to endless errors inside the <ext/*>
>> headers :-(
>>
>> Including either one of the headers is just fine though.
>
> But the <unordered_*> headers are only available with -std=c++0x. 

Huh, good point.  Too bad you have to set a compiler flag for that one.

>> As far as I can tell the only library effected by this change would
>> be Boost.Serialization which would lose has_set support in gcc's
>> c++0x mode. How do folks feel about that?
>
> I remember that Dave was trying to eliminate the warnings from the BGL. 
> <hash_set> is used in boost/graph/adjacency_list.hpp, too.
> I've disabled them for my project with BOOST_NO_HASH. 
> I don't care about them, but there may be projects around using them.
>
> A short grep finds:
> ./boost/pending/container_traits.hpp:25:#    include <hash_set>
> ./boost/pending/container_traits.hpp:30:#    include <hash_map>
> ./boost/graph/adjacency_list.hpp:27:#    include <hash_set>

Yeah.  Or maybe we should just use boost::unordered in future.  It's
hard to imagine that any of these projects have docs so specific about
the container used that it would be a problem.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com