Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [xpressive] Performance Tuning?
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-19 21:03:06

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Edward Grace<ej.grace_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> : warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for macro 'max'
> WTF?  What the hell's wrong with this?
>  time_raw_atom( _Operation f)  {
>    ticks t0(0),t1(0),delta(std::numeric_limits<ticks>::max());
> Ok.  I bet MSVC (that's what you're using right) defines macros called "min"
> and "max".  I guess that's what happens when one sips from the teat of the
> devil.  A couple of undefs perhaps..

Correct, some old VC headers define min/max for some godforsaken
reason. Anytime I use the words min/max in any of my files anywhere,
then at the top of the file, after the generic header includes I
always add:

#ifdef min
# undef min
#endif // min
#ifdef max
# undef max
#endif // max

And yea yea, I would like to use GCC to compile, but I currently have
sold my soul to the Visual Assist plugin for Visual Studio. If any
IDE out there with GCC support had anywhere near the capabilities of
Visual Assist (without Visual Assist, Eclipse is even better then VC),
I would switch in a heart-beat. Visual Assist just saves me on the
order of a monstrous amount of time, completely addicted by this

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at