At 10:07 PM 2/7/2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the
compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
implementation isn't protected against ADL
At 10:07 PM 2/7/2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the
compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
implementation isn't protected against ADL lookups where
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the
compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
implementation isn't protected against ADL lookups
Guillaume Melquiond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the
compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
Again, a nasty case of patching the tests rather than the library :¬ (
It appears borland ADL is not up to the task of handling the interval
library test cases. Looking at the fail lists, I suspect it is not the
only compiler to suffer.
I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL
