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

Subject: Re: [boost] [integer][math]Heads up on revised gcd/lcm code
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-29 18:57:52

On 4/29/2017 1:49 PM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
> 
>> 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....

Something apparently happened to everybody, where the mailing lists 
stopped working along with the GMane reflection. Everything seems to be 
back now.

> 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?

I am on Linux ( Fedora 25 ), not Solaris. I will look at it and see what 
I can figure out.

> In which case are you able to 
> figure out why that pp-branch is taken?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> John.