Subject: Re: [boost] [proto] Recent (rvalue support) changes in proto causes a whole bunch of regressions in Spirit
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-10 14:04:12
On 10/10/2011 2:08 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 1:52 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 12:38 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> Bummer. I suggest adding an rvalue ref overload of operator%= that
>>> shares an implementation with the const lvalue one. Should just be a few
>>> lines of code. Is that a problem?
>> Not really a problem. But, %= is just an example of the problems
>> (plural with an s). We suspect that it is more widespread. I'll
>> see how pervasive the changes need to be and get back to you.
> Ok, adding the %= for rvalue refs for Qi and Karma fixed a lot of
> the failing tests. However, I am not sure how to fix the tests
> involving Lex (crashes on VC10 but OK on GCC). The compiler
> tutorial I am working on also got broken. I am not sure what else
> in the examples got broken. It's quite difficult to ascertain
> where the problem is because the code builds without errors
> but either crashes or does not work as expected at runtime.
> This is an insidious critter.
> Hartmut, I committed the fix for Qi and Karma. Can you please
> take a look at the Lex regressions? There's a good chance
> that the problem with the examples is also related to the Lex
I just ran the spirit_v2/lex and spirit_v2/lex_regressions test suites
on msvc-10.0, and everything passed for me. Is this fixed already? Let
me know asap so I know whether to revert my Proto changes.
(Note: If they don't make it in this time, these Proto changes will
eventually go back in for next release, so Qi/Karma/Lex will need to be
-- Eric Niebler 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