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: 2015-06-16 17:24:03

On 06/10/15 03:36, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 6/10/2015 12:36 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Jessica Hamilton <
>>> jessica.l.hamilton_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9 June 2015 at 19:40, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Edward Diener 
>>>>> <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I know what is wrong in the predef-check functionality. 
>>>>>> In my
>>>> VMD
>>>>>> jamfile the use of predef-check, for any given compile or run rule,
>>>> looks
>>>>>> like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ predef-check "BOOST_COMP_GNUC >= 4.3" "BOOST_OS_QNX == 0" : :
>>>>>> <cxxflags>-std=c++0x ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes..
>>>>>
>>>>> What I am seeing is that except on QNX, where "BOOST_OS_QNX != 0", 
>>>>> the
>>>>>> '-std=c++0x' is always being added as a C++ compiler flag to the
>>>> command
>>>>>> line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This initially suggests to me that you are treating more than one
>>>> quoted
>>>>>> predef definition as an OR gate rather than an AND gate. But note 
>>>>>> that
>>>> on
>>>>>> QNX, where where "BOOST_OS_QNX != 0" and "BOOST_COMP_GNUC >= 4.3" is
>>>> true,
>>>>>> the '-std=c++0x' is not being added. So your logic seems to be 
>>>>>> that as
>>>> you
>>>>>> go through multiple predef definitions once you hit a 'true' 
>>>>>> condition
>>>> you
>>>>>> choose the 'true' path as long as no 'false' conditions follow it,
>>>> else you
>>>>>> choose the 'false' path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see if you can fix this given this clue about how 
>>>>>> predef-check
>>>> is
>>>>>> working for the VMD regression tests on various platforms/compilers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if it helped but I did a change to one of the tests I 
>>>>> do to
>>>>> completely cover all the Venn variations of the binary and 
>>>>> expression. I
>>>>> changed my test to this:
>>>>>
>>>>>      [ run check_value.cpp : : : <test-info>always_show_run_output
>>>>>          [ predef-check "BOOST_COMP_CLANG > 0" "BOOST_OS_LINUX == 
>>>>> 0" : :
>>>>> <cxxflags>-DCHECK_VALUE=true : <cxxflags>-DCHECK_VALUE=false ] ]
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, what happens if you remove the second <cxxflags>
>>>> variable, and use an #ifndef check, and run again? It's the only
>>>> difference I can notice between the two examples.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK.. Did that change. My local OSX test shows "CHECK_VALUE == 1" as
>>> expected and correctly. In a few minutes I'll post what the online 
>>> tests
>>> show. But the expectation is that they should all show "CHECK_VALUE ==
>>> undefined".
>>>
>>
>> And the online tests are now done. And indeed they all print out
>> "CHECK_VALUE == undefined".
>
> Feel free to take a look at my VMD tests jamfile. If you see anything 
> you think is wrong I can change it. I don't think it is the jamfile 
> but something having to do with the Android and SunOS operating 
> systems. I realize that I was wrong in thinking that -std=c++0x is 
> always added, annd that this was my mistake.
The tests for SunOS do not look right.
http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/oracle-intel-S2-stlport4-boost-bin-v2-libs-vmd-test-test_after_array_elem-test-sun-stlport4-release-threading-multi.html

1)  -Wno-variadic-macros is not a valid option on SunOS.
2) -std=c++0x  and -compat=5  are incompatible
3) -std  and -library=stlport4 are incompatible

Thanks,

Aparna

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