Re: [boost] [preprocessor] badly formed constant expression on Sun

Subject: Re: [boost] [preprocessor] badly formed constant expression on Sun
From: lcaminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-13 15:51:01

Paul Mensonides wrote
> 
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:27:40 -0700, lcaminiti wrote:
> 
>> Is (BOOST_PP_VALUE) / 1000000000UL not a valid constant expression on
>> Sun 64-bits machines?
> 
> 32 vs. 64-bit shouldn't make a difference to the mechanism.  I suppose it 
> might matter if something was less than 32-bit.
> 
>> I can't reproduce this error on my Sun C++ compiler installed on 32-bit
>> Ubuntu Linux... so maybe this is about the actual Sun machine and not
>> the Sun compiler... However, all Boost.Preprocessor tests pass on Sun...
>> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/preprocessor.html
>> 
>> Any suggestion?
>> 
>> Thanks a lot.
>> --Lorenzo
> 
> I have no idea what the problem is (and I don't have access to the 
> compiler/architecture to figure it out).  What's BOOST_PP_VALUE defined
> as?
> 

It's a bit different for me to be sure about what was going on but I think
the following caused the error:

#       define BOOST_PP_ITERATION_PARAMS_1 \
            (3, (0,
BOOS_PP_SUB(BOOST_FUNCTIONAL_OVERLOADED_FUNCTION_CONFIG_OVERLOAD_MAX, 2), \
            "boost/functional/overloaded_function.hpp"))
#       include BOOST_PP_ITERATE() // Iterate over function arity.

The issue goes away if I remove the PP_SUB from within the PARAMS_1
definition (that's how I worked around the issue, I iterate 2 to MAX and
then SUB 2 from within the iteration frame).

Is that expected or it's a bug in the Sun pp macro expansion? This issue
only happened on Sun...

Thanks a lot.
--Lorenzo

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-preprocessor-badly-formed-constant-expression-on-Sun-tp4530737p4555817.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.