Re: [boost] [Serialization] BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT regression on SunCC

Subject: Re: [boost] [Serialization] BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT regression on SunCC
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-17 15:19:20

on Tue Feb 17 2009, Sohail Somani <sohail-AT-taggedtype.net> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Tue Feb 17 2009, Sohail Somani <sohail-AT-taggedtype.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> rather than figuring out hacks for each compiler.
>>>> Previous to my implementation, there was a nasty #include ordering
>>>> dependency.  That's what I fixed.
>>> You introduced a gigantic regression. Is that not important?
>> 
>> It would be if it were true.  But after my changes, all the regression
>> tests passed for compilers we were supporting.  So how's that possible?
>
> That is strange. I distinctly remember it not working for g++ 4 for a while.

I remember something like that too.  However, IIRC, that problem was a
simple case of stupid incorrect code on my part, that somehow happened to
work on earlier compilers.  That had nothing to do with relying on
compiler implementation details.

Yep: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1711

> Do you mean to distinguish between compilers Boost is supporting and
> compilers Boost tests on? 

No I do not.  It was passing on all the compilers we tested on and/or I
could get my hands on.

> If so I'm not sure how helpful that is. In this case, tests that
> passed before, no longer pass.

Please know exactly what you're saying before you make that claim for a
third time.  I was *exceedingly* careful in testing these changes.
Before we can know that I introduced a regression, we need to consider
the original state of the code I checked in (since changed), the exact
compilers that were available, and those we were testing on.

So, as far as I can tell, GCC-4.1.0 came out a few months before my
checkin, and I don't even know that the problem was occurring until a
later release of 4.1.x, since the bug report isn't specific.

https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/34106
http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html

And again, the issue there has nothing to do with relying on
implementation-specific hacks, and it wasn't reported until two years later
(by you, incidentally).

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