Re: [Boost-Users] Re: Compile error with boost::tokenizer and Forte 6U2

From: George Heintzelman (georgeh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-18 13:34:40

(moved to boost developers list)

[snip most of the changes for SunPro CC]

> Also ifdef BOOST_STATIC_ASSERTs on is_input_or_output_iter and 
> forward_iter_with_real_reference (~lines 616-630). 

Whoa Nelly. I also found most of the changes you suggested, but I 
looked into these assert failures compiling on SunPro 5.3 -- and I 
found that they really were indicating that the compiler was doing 
something wrong with the typedefs inside the constructed iterator. 
Ignoring the problem by #ifdefing these out I think may cause problems 
with the iterator adaptors in some contexts, though I think they will 
probably work correctly for simple dereferencing and incrementing.

To fix (at least partly) these, I found I needed to turn on some of the 
hacks for BORLANDC in the detail/named_template_params header, 
specifically the ones to use
type_traits::yes_type instead of a bool specialization.  I also needed 
to turn on BOOST_BUGGY_INTEGRAL_CONSTANT_EXPRESSIONS for the 
static_assert header; I suspect the BORLANDC #ifdefs I had to turn on 
are related to this same problem, and they ought to be unified in the 
config header.

Once that was done, the compiler still got itself quite confused 
by the line in detail/named_template_params.hpp:
      typedef typename choose_arg_or_default<typename is_default<Arg>
::type>::type Selector;
Splitting this up into
      typedef typename is_default<Arg>::type is_default;
      typedef typename choose_arg_or_default<is_default>::type Selector;
seemed to keep the compiler from getting itself all screwed up.

This got me part of the way there, but one of those two Static_asserts 
was still firing, and it seemed to me correctly so (that is, correctly 
in that the compiler was behaving incorrectly elsewhere). I came to the 
conclusion that it was still the same buggy integral constant 
specialization problem -- if I were to rewrite some of the selector 
code to use yes_type instead of a bool specialization, I believe I 
could get it to work, but given that that would have meant some 
wholesale changes to type_traits, I stopped there.

George Heintzelman
georgeh_at_[hidden]