Re: [boost] [integer][math]Heads up on revised gcd/lcm code

Subject: Re: [boost] [integer][math]Heads up on revised gcd/lcm code
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-29 17:49:02

> Sorry about the multiple posts. I have been having some trouble with 
> Thunderbird. I think it is fixed now.
>

No problem, for some reason I lost all boost messages for a couple of 
days.... but I see from the archives you replied as below:

 >With 12.3 I see:

 >sun.compile.c++
 >/home/fceldiener/build/boost/bin.v2/libs/integer/test/fail_uint_65.test/sun-12.3stlport/debug/address-model-32/fail_uint_65.o

 >I can not see why it fails to compile and no reason seems to be given.

It's a compile-fail test, which compiles when it should not - as I 
understand it, it tries to create a 65-bit integer which should of 
course fail.
I assume it's a compiler bug, but either way, nothing has changed in 
that code for years.

 >With 12.2 I still see:

 >sun.compile.c++
 >/home/fceldiener/build/boost/bin.v2/libs/integer/test/integer_traits_test.test/sun-12.2stlport/debug/address-model-32/integer_traits_test.o
 >"../../../boost/cstdint.hpp", line 381: Error: uintptr_t is not defined.
 >1 Error(s) detected.

That's weird, it should have been fixed in 
https://github.com/boostorg/config/commit/19766b0a0e3d8c92e4c0d058cc47190ce7ea1528 
- solaris.hpp unconditionally defines BOOST_HAS_STDINT_H so that 
pp-branch should only be taken when INTPTR_MAX is defined and ::intptr 
actually exists.  Or are you on red-hat? In which case are you able to 
figure out why that pp-branch is taken?

Thanks!

John.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com