Subject: Re: [boost] [config] gcc and <unordered_set> vs <ext/hash_set>
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-22 04:51:34
Robert Ramey wrote:
>>> So... how should we handled this? Not define BOOST_HAS_HASH when
>>> <unordered_set> *is* available?
>> That would make it impossible to read archives which contain hashed
>> pointers under the current system. And of course one couldn't write
>> portable programs which use the old hashed containers any more and
>> not all compilers /libraries support ext/hash so the final result
>> would be that one couldn't make a portable program with hashed
Exactly, the old hashed containers aren't portable between compilers, will
be removed in some future gcc release, and can't reliably be used in C++0x
>>> 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?
>> Seems to me the best would be not to include both headers in the same
>> source module. That is, ignore the problem and just take the
>> error message as a long winded version of "don't do this!!!!". Of
>> course a short winded version would be better and maybe
>> config can be ehanced to do that.
OK, I've rigged the config system to allow both to be enabled at the same
time for now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk