Subject: Re: [boost] Boost SIMD beta release
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-21 05:11:38
On 20-12-2012 17:35, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 20-12-2012 15:09, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>> The suggested approach has a nasty potential problem though. You have
>>> to be extra careful so that no common inline functions are compiled in
>>> different translation units with different compiler settings.
>>> Otherwise you may have ODR violation and it is unspecified which
>>> version of such functions end up in the compiled binary.
>> Well, is that different than other ODR violations?
> Not really, except that it's much more easier to get that problem.
>> We use bjam, so the settings are easy to make consistent across projects.
> Umm, I'm not sure you understood. The point was to compile different
> TUs with different compiler options (some with SSE enabled and others
Hm. I think I get it now. Sounds nasty indeed. Forget about using any
templated container in such TUs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk