Re: [boost] [function] new implementation

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] new implementation
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-04 06:07:53

"Lars Viklund" <zao_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:20101103213628.GM22859_at_hatchepsut.acc.umu.se...
> This compiles with SunStudio versions:
> * CC: Sun C++ 5.9 SunOS_sparc 2007/05/03
> * CC: Sun C++ 5.10 SunOS_sparc 2009/06/03
>
> xlC however, does not fare that well, logs attached.

Nice, we're getting somewhere :)
Try the new version ;)

If this basic test now compiles, would you perhaps be willing to run some 
regression tests?

ps. a side note, as a purely uneducated guess I would have thought that the 
IBM compiler is better than the Sun one, however, for the Sun compiler I 
only had to correct my own error while VisualAge seems to have problems with
- out-of-parent-(non-template)-class definitions of member class templates
- integral constant expressions in static asserts (but so does Clang and 
older GCCs)
- RVO with classes that derive from boost::noncopyable (but so does Clang 
and all GCCs)...

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman