Subject: Re: [boost] [Serialization] BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT regression on SunCC
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-17 19:42:53
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:
>>> 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
> This comes back to a question I had earlier which was: where in the
> standard does it specify that looking up functions during ADL requires
> instantiation of return types?
Well, if the type is illegal in a way that doesn't qualify for SFINAE, a
diagnostic is required. That means the compiler has to figure out what
the type is. However, I think the real question is whether the code is
required to cause the overload resolution at all. Strictly speaking,
the code can be considered to be "unused" and so the compiler is allowed
to not instantiate it.
> Is there an archive of test results somewhere?
> That would make it easier to track down when it stopped working.
>> 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).
> I don't think that the change was done 3 years ago means anything. Just
> that Boost used to take a long time to release and people are slow to
> I thought it was kind of funny that I reported the same issue in two
> different compilers. Unfortunately, no workaround or fix yet!
Huh? 1711 was fixed and closed.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk