Re: [boost] [predef] Using predef-check on 'develop' problem

Subject: Re: [boost] [predef] Using predef-check on 'develop' problem
From: Aparna Kumta (aparna.kumta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-26 17:27:53

On 05/25/15 20:29, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 5/25/2015 10:51 PM, Aparna Kumta wrote:
>> On 05/25/15 19:22, Edward Diener wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2015 9:43 PM, Aparna Kumta wrote:
>>>> On 05/25/15 18:25, Edward Diener wrote:
>>>>> On 5/18/2015 10:57 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Edward Diener
>>>>>>> <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2015 4:38 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Edward Diener
>>>>>>>>> <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   In a jam file I have for a run test a predef-check which looks
>>>>>>>>> like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> run test_variadic_macro.cpp : : : [ predef-check
>>>>>>>>>> "BOOST_COMP_GNUC >=
>>>>>>>>>> 4.3"
>>>>>>>>>> "BOOST_OS_QNX == 0" : : <cxxflags>-std=c++0x ] ;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When running on QNX with the gcc version greater than 4.3 I 
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> expect
>>>>>>>>>> that -std=c++0x would not be added as a C++ compile parameter
>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>>>> Yet it is being added to the run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another test confirms that BOOST_OS_QNX is indeed being set to a
>>>>>>>>>> non-zero
>>>>>>>>>> value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there a bug in predef-check ? Am I using it incorrectly ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It looks like a bug to me.. I'll investigate further tonight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I am also seeing, besides the QNX problem, is that for the
>>>>>>>> Android
>>>>>>>> OS 'develop' tests, using the same predef-check as above, both
>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>> are true, yet the -std=c++0x is not on the command line of the
>>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI.. I haven't stopped working on fixing this. And I have an 
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> working resolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's done, and checked into the predef develop branch. I need to
>>>>>> update
>>>>>> and regenerate docs before I can merge to master though. So things
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> only start working on the develop super-project.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have discovered a problem with predef in the 'develop' regression
>>>>> tests at
>>>>> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/summary.html
>>>>> for the SunOS operating system and Oracle ( aka Sun ) C++.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look at the predef info_as_cpp tests, such as at
>>>>> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/NA-QNX650-SP1-ARM-boost-bin-v2-libs-predef-test-info_as_cpp-test-qcc-4-4-2_arm-debug-debug-symbols-off.html, 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you will see that no compiler is being detected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet if you look at my VMD test, called test_variadic_macro, at
>>>>> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/oracle-intel-S2-stlport4-boost-bin-v2-libs-vmd-test-test_variadic_macro-test-sun-stlport4-release-threading-multi.html, 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you can see that I am picking up that '__SUNPRO_CC' is defined.
>>>> The error I see in this case is
>>>>
>>>> ../libs/vmd/test/test_variadic_macro.cxx(25): No variadic macro 
>>>> support:
>>>> __SUNPRO_CC defined. in function '(unknown)'
>>>>
>>>> Oracle Solaris Studio does support variadic macros.
>>>> In libs/preprocessor/include/boost/preprocessor/config/config.hpp
>>>> line# 73-77, seems incorrect for SUNPRO_CC and
>>>> BOOST_PP_VARIADICS should be set to 1.
>>>>
>>>> 73  # define BOOST_PP_VARIADICS_MSVC 0
>>>> 74  # if !defined BOOST_PP_VARIADICS
>>>> 75  #    /* variadic support explicitly disabled for all untested
>>>> compilers */
>>>> 76  #    if defined __GCCXML__ || defined __CUDACC__ || defined
>>>> __PATHSCALE__ || defined __DMC__ || de
>>>> fined __CODEGEARC__ || defined __BORLANDC__ || defined __MWERKS__ ||
>>>> defined __SUNPRO_CC || defined __HP_a
>>>> CC && !defined __EDG__ || defined __MRC__ || defined __SC__ || defined
>>>> __IBMCPP__ || defined __PGI
>>>> 77  #        define BOOST_PP_VARIADICS 0
>>>>
>>>> Should I submit a PR for this change?
>>>
>>> No need. I am aware of it. I need to determine the value of
>>> __SUNPRO_CC or above which can support variadic macros, and then I
>>> will make the change and update it in the preprocessor library. I am
>>> pretty sure it is version 12.3 and above, and I know the __SUNPRO_CC
>>> value for that version (0x5120).
>> Variadic macros have been supported for a while.
>> The only compilers that don't support variadic macros are End Of Service
>> Life, so we don't  need to check for the value.
>
> Nonetheless I want to be conservative about this, as it might change 
> the functionality of users of past versions of Oracle C++ who have 
> used Boost PP in their macro programming. Remember that Boost PP can 
> still function without variadic macro support and it has been around 
> for quite awhile. Whereas VMD is a new library which hasn't been used 
> in the past since the next Boost release will be the first, and it 
> requires variadic macro support. Furthermore we haven't been 
> regression testing Oracle C++ in the past, whether with Boost PP or 
> anything else, so I am loath to make a radical change with Boost PP 
> and older versions of Oracle C++ ( Sun C++ in the past ).
>
> What I am going to do is change the code above so that variadic 
> support is automatically turned off with Oracle C++ only for versions 
> below 12.3. If anyone running a version of Oracle C++ below 12.3 wants 
> to use VMD he can still force variadic macro support by defining 
> BOOST_PP_VARIADICS=1. I have chosem 12.3 since it appears to be the 
> first release that supports C++11 through a 'std=' option 
Oracle Solaris Studio 12.4 is the first release that supports C++11.
The __SUNPRO_CC value for this version is 0x5130
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37069_01/html/E37071/gndfg.html

> and variadic macro support is part of C++11 although many compilers 
> previosuly supported it from the C99 standard.
>
> I also must pay attention to the Boost PP tests for your setup so that 
> my change does not cause any problems there.
>
> I also see that there is no information about the version of Oracle 
> C++ you are tesing in the regression tests. Can this be added 
> somewhere so it can be seen ? For most other compilers it gives the 
> name and version of the compiler.
  I will update my scripts to provide the information.

Thanks,

Aparna

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost