Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] explicit instantiation of boost::shared_ptr
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-11 16:13:01


The easiest fix I can think of is to change

    return px[ i ];


    return static_cast< typename boost::detail::sp_array_access< T >::type
>( px[ i ] );

This seems to work for me with the current develop (master should be the
same). I get no other errors.

-----Original Message-----
From: Petr Machata
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 21:55
To: Peter Dimov
Cc: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: [smart_ptr] explicit instantiation of boost::shared_ptr

Hi there,

I got a bug report that the following code doesn't compile:

#include <boost/tr1/memory.hpp>
template class boost::shared_ptr<int>;
int main(int, char**) {}

The errors this gives under GCC 4.9 are as follows:

In file included from /usr/include/boost/shared_ptr.hpp:17:0,
                 from /usr/include/boost/tr1/memory.hpp:56,
/usr/include/boost/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.hpp: In instantiation of 'typename
boost::shared_ptr<T>::operator[](std::ptrdiff_t) const [with T = int;
typename boost::detail::sp_array_access<T>::type = void; std::ptrdiff_t =
long int]': required from here
/usr/include/boost/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.hpp:663:22: error: return-statement
with a value, in function returning 'void' [-fpermissive]
         return px[ i ];

This in particular is with boost 1.54. The problem is however present
on master as well, where it also gives more errors relating to
boost/core/demangle.hpp that I didn't look into.

I went ahead to do some investigation in case the issue ends up being
trivial. We can't use enable_if to disable a particular member
function. Not unless it's a template. Making it a template would lead
to a code like this:

template <class U = T,
  class V = boost::disable_if <boost::is_void
<boost::detail::sp_array_access< U >::type>, U>::type>
boost::detail::sp_array_access< T >::type operator[] (etc. etc.);

... which is not C++98, and I don't have ideas how to C++98-ify it while
also having it do what we want without breaking API. (The indirection
through U may not be necessary, I'm not in fact sure, but that doesn't
change anything.)

One way that I can see is extracting element_type * px to a base class
(say, boost::detail::sp_operator_at) that either does or does not define
operator[] (which would then use the px). But that implies some amount
of code motion, and not knowing what your position would be, I didn't
want to blindly go ahead and start moving stuff around.

So, would a patch to the effect described above be possibly acceptable?


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