On 13-06-15 03:40 PM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote: > On 15/06/2013 03:43 a.m., Agustín K-ballo Bergé wrote: >> On 14/06/2013 11:06 p.m., Eric Niebler wrote: >>> >>> (Sorry for the top-posting. I'm away from my computer.) >>> >>> The repository *is* compilable, if your compiler is clang built from >>> trunk. I suspect there are bugs in Proto, gcc, and clang, and sorting >>> it all out will be fun. >>> >>> Thanks for your patch. I'll apply it as soon as I can. >>> >>> Eric >> >> That's the green light I was expecting to start picking Proto v5 at GCC. >> I just got the first test compiling and passing successfully >> (action.cpp). I have pushed all the changes to my fork of the >> repository, so if you are interested keep an eye on it. >> >> Even after disabling the substitution_failure machinery (to get the full >> instantiation spew), going through the compiler output is mind >> bending... My respects to you, sir! >> >>> > > The fork of Proto v5 at https://github.com/K-ballo/proto-0x correctly > compiles and passes (almost*) all test cases and examples with GCC > 4.8.1.
Wow! This is huge. > There are two caveats: > > - GCC does not allow the use of `this` within noexcept specifications, > so those are disabled. This is a bug in GCC (reported by Dave Abrahams > here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869) Thanks. There is also this one that I filed (and I see you worked around with mpl::identity): http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57384 > - Some specific uses of Proto actions in constant expressions fail. GCC > reports an ambiguity with ref-qualifiers in the following scenario: > > struct foo > { > int& bar() & > { return _bar; } > //~ int&& bar() && > //~ { return static_cast<int&&>(_bar); } > constexpr int const& bar() const & > { return _bar; } > constexpr int const&& bar() const && > { return static_cast<int const&&>(_bar); } > > int _bar; > }; > > foo().bar(); > > For that to work correctly, the 4 overloads need to be provided. Huh. According to the standard, or according to gcc? I won't work around a bug in a compiler without filing it first. > This, > in turn, means that non-const rvalues (?) cannot be used in constant > expressions since constexpr implies const (in C++11, not anymore in > C++14). Anyway, this is more than I can digest at the moment. > > (*) the bit failing to compile is a use of Proto actions as a constant > expression [the `omg` case at everywhere.cpp], due to the issue with > ref-qualifier overloads. I see you included all of these fixes in your one pull request. I'll need to go through this carefully and file compiler bugs where necessary. I also want to use BOOST_WORKAROUND if we actually include any temporary workarounds in the code. I say "temporary" because I have every intention of ripping out all workarounds once the bugs actually get fixed. I intend to keep this code as clean as possible. A million thanks for your work. It's a huge help. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing www.boostpro.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
