|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-08 03:32:50
OK, commited type_traits/config.hpp to declare that vacpp6 also supports
SFINAE. I tested it and now process_jam_log compiles succesfully. We will
therefore continue to pursue running regression.py on IBM on a regular
basis.
"boost.regex_at_[hidden]" <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> So IIUC every compiler that does not defined BOOST_NO_IS_ABSTRACT
>> currently
>> defines BOOST_TT_HAS_CONFORMING_IS_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION, except for
>vacpp.
>> Right?
>
>Correct.
>
>> Apparantly so, following are the options added by configure (in
>user.hpp)
>>
>> <user.hpp generated by configure>
>> #define BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
>> #define BOOST_HAS_UNISTD_H
>> #define BOOST_HAS_STDINT_H
>> #define BOOST_HAS_SIGACTION
>> #define BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD
>> #define BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS
>> #define BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE
>> #define BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_DELAY_NP
>> #define BOOST_HAS_PARTIAL_STD_ALLOCATOR
>> #define BOOST_HAS_NL_TYPES_H
>> #define BOOST_HAS_NANOSLEEP
>> #define BOOST_HAS_MACRO_USE_FACET
>> #define BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
>> #define BOOST_HAS_GETTIMEOFDAY
>> #define BOOST_HAS_DIRENT_H
>> #define BOOST_HAS_CLOCK_GETTIME
>> #define BOOST_NO_POINTER_TO_MEMBER_TEMPLATE_PARAMETERS
>> </user>
>>
>>
>> BTW, are these options necessary in *addition* to the options already
>used
>> or meant to be a config from scratch? AFAICT the latter, right?
>
>>From scratch, so it looks like SFINAE works OK. In fact only one defect
>macro is pretty impressive!
>
>> if SFINAE would'nt work, the configure script would define
>BOOST_NO_SFINAE
>> in user.hpp, right?
>
>Right.
>
>> But what if we just test if we're working with the __IBMCPP__ compiler
>and
>> then define BOOST_TT_HAS_CONFORMING_IS_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION in
>> type_traits/config.hpp, just like you do for GCC, MSVC etc.
>
>Yes, that looks to be the best fix for now, can you check that does
>actually
>work? Feel free to commit it if it does.
>
>>>Hope this helps to clear things up, and not muddy them further!
>>
>> I'm hanging on ;-)
>
>:-)
>
>Thanks for pursuing this,
>
>John.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-Testing mailing list
>Boost-Testing_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-testing
>