Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Bug report rejected as conformant
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-13 21:13:27

On 1/13/2018 3:40 PM, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Edward Diener via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I recently reported a preprocessor bug in Oracle C++ 12.6 on their online
>> forum when compiling a C program example. I even cited the C11 standard in
> What bug is it about?

Oracle C++ fails two preprocessor tests. I boiled it down to:

#define SOME_MACRO(x,y) some_result
int main() { SOME_MACRO(); return 0; }

Of course calling SOME_MACRO without two arguments is a preprocessor
error. Oracle C++ gives only a warning.

My point is not about an actual bug but that a compiler decides a bug is
not a bug because it gives a warning rather than an error. I find this
ludicrous. I know that the VC++ preprocessor is much worse and is not
even remotely C or C++ standard conformant. But no one from Microsoft
would seriously argue that their preprocessor conformed to the C++
standard. The fact that the Oracle developer actual argues this case is
what bothered me and caused my to give up trying to test that compiler
or report anything to them.

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