Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.53.0] Beta release candidates 2 now available for testing
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-05 19:05:36

Le 06/01/13 00:06, Marshall Clow a écrit :
> On Jan 5, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Le 05/01/13 18:37, Marshall Clow a écrit :
>>> On Jan 4, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Updated release candidate files for 1.53.0 beta 1 are available at
>>>> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download
>>>> the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report
>>>> both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
>>> I built the RC on Mac OS X with both clang and gcc w/o errors.
>>> However, when I built using clang and libc++ in C++11 mode, I found two problems:
>>> ./b2 toolset=clang cxxflags="-std=c++11 -stdlib=libc++ -Wno-unused-variable" linkflags="-stdlib=libc++"
>>> Issue #1:
>>>> clang-darwin.compile.c++ bin.v2/libs/chrono/build/clang-darwin-11/release/threading-multi/chrono.o
>>>> In file included from libs/chrono/src/chrono.cpp:14:
>>>> In file included from ./boost/chrono/detail/inlined/chrono.hpp:13:
>>>> In file included from ./boost/chrono/chrono.hpp:11:
>>>> ./boost/chrono/duration.hpp:353:49: error: constexpr function never produces a constant expression
>>>> ^
>>>> ./boost/chrono/duration.hpp:355:21: note: non-constexpr function 'max' cannot be used in a constant expression
>>>> return -(std::numeric_limits<float>::max) ();
>>>> ^
>>>> /usr/bin/../lib/c++/v1/limits:443:43: note: declared here
>>>> _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY static type max() _NOEXCEPT {return __base::max();}
>>>> ^
>>> This is a bug in libc++; std::numeric_limits<>::max() is not marked as constexpr.
>>> This has been fixed in the libc++ trunk, and should appear in the next clang/libc++ release.
>> Hi, I defined BOOST_CHRONO_LIB_CONSTEXPR as follows to avoid this problem.
>> #if defined( BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS )
>> #else
>> #endif
>> Shouldn't BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS be defined as it doesn't providesa C++11 implementation, or should Boost.Chrono take in account the missing feature of libc++ individually?
> I'm not sure what you are referring to with the word "it" in that sentence.
I meant if Boost.Config shouldn't not define
BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS when using the libc++ as doesn't provide a
compliant c++11 implementation.


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