Re: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #4146: [patch] ./boost/property_tree/detail/xml_parser_read_rapidxml.hpp:117: error: non-constant `(((int)f_c) | 3072)' cannot be used as template argument

Subject: Re: [Boost-bugs] [Boost C++ Libraries] #4146: [patch] ./boost/property_tree/detail/xml_parser_read_rapidxml.hpp:117: error: non-constant `(((int)f_c) | 3072)' cannot be used as template argument
From: Boost C++ Libraries (noreply_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-21 15:38:04

#4146: [patch] ./boost/property_tree/detail/xml_parser_read_rapidxml.hpp:117:
error: non-constant `(((int)f_c) | 3072)' cannot be used as template
argument
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
  Reporter:  Jan-Hein Bührman <buhrman@…>          |       Owner:  cornedbee                                              
      Type:  Bugs                                  |      Status:  closed                                                 
 Milestone:                                        |   Component:  property_tree                                          
   Version:  Boost Development Trunk               |    Severity:  Showstopper                                            
Resolution:  fixed                                 |    Keywords:  property_tree xml_parser non-constant template argument
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------

Comment (by buhrman@…):

 Replying to [comment:6 Leonid Gershanovich <gleonid@…>]:
 > gcc 3.4.6 (RHEL 4) and gcc 4.1.2 (RHEL 5) both choking on this
 construct.
 Just to get things clear and to prevent mistakes: are these `gcc` versions
 [=#point1 (1)] choking on the original sources where I provided a patch
 for, or [=#point2 (2)] ''after'' you have applied this patch
 ([https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/attachment/ticket/4146/boost-

 property_tree_fix2.diff boost-property_tree_fix2.diff])?

 In the first case [#point1 (1)] I would would recommend just moving to a
 more recent version of Boost, because despite the remark made in
 [comment:3 comment 3 by anonymous] I believe the fix is now in the latest
 release(s).

 In the latter case [#point2 (2)] this would mean that `gcc` got worse (or
 more picky - I don't know since I'm not a C++ standard expert) since the
 proposed patch did solve the problem for `gcc 3.4.4`.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4146#comment:7>
Boost C++ Libraries <http://www.boost.org/>
Boost provides free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries.