> I think problem is with BOOST_EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_TYPE(void) > Simply removing that workaround macro from forced_return works for me as a > dirty workaround. > > The question is, why BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ARGUMENTS on gcc > 3.2.x? config/compiler/gcc.hpp comments about some unspecified bug, while > documentation says only about VC6. The same bug in both compilers? Strange.
Kind of - the extended test case is in libs/config/test/boost_no_exp_func_tem_arg.cxx > Diving more in config, little of compiler specific code pollutes > config/suffix.hpp, shouldnt it go to compiler specific config instead? Everything in suffix.hpp is generic macro workarounds - it's not dependent upon specific compilers just whether the appropriate macro is defined. I think you are going to have to use a dirty workaround here: check for gcc before using BOOST_EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_TYPE(void) in this particular case. John. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
