Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to say that I think it's the wrong patch. The right patch
would put the swap specialization into _STL::.
It actually sufixes
I assume you mean suffices.
to put any 'std' extension in a nested namespace (say, stdx); then
injecting
Beman Dawes wrote:
I'd like to be sure that some Booster signs up for this beta and starts
running the Boost regression tests against it. And then follows up with
bug reports to Borland as needed. Any bugs fixed in the compiler before
it ships are bugs Boosters don't have to cope with later.
David Abrahams wrote:
I'm trying to say that I think it's the wrong patch. The right patch
would put the swap specialization into _STL::.
I'm weighing up the 'correct' solution with the 'practical' solution.
Correct would be, as you say, fix all the code everywhere else
specializing
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
It actually sufixes to put any 'std' extension in a nested namespace (say, stdx);
then injecting
the names in 'std'.
I didn't think that was allowed?
IIUC, all we are allowed to do in namespace std (as library users) is
provide specializations of templates for
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and anyway I don't see how it could help if you want to
specialize something in std. Am I missing something?
If the specialization is injected into 'std' via
a using
Alan Bellingham wrote:
Any volunteers:-?
Mr Meredith? grin
I guess there's a few of us waiting to see now. Better chance to
compare notes I guess g
I note that this is an invitation to join the beta, rather than a public
beta, so I guess anyone who does get on will sign the traditional
At 07:49 PM 8/5/2003, Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
Edward Diener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 09:58 PM 8/4/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
There is a problem with the Borland BCB6 compiler...
What is the status of the Borland compiler as far
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 09:58 PM 8/4/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
There is a problem with the Borland BCB6 compiler...
What is the status of the Borland compiler as far as fixes and
updates go? Have they announced any plans?
Although they have not announced anything further about more BCB6
Alisdair Meredith wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Err, I don't get it. It seems to me that you only need the hack if
you're going to *specialize* swap. *Using* std::swap should work
just fine.
OK, that's because I was confused g
The following is really a minimal example, so I can be clearer
At 04:57 PM 8/6/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
That does bring up the question of how the config for the new compiler
is published though.
What has happened in the past is that config related changes (config
headers and build toolsets) start appearing in CVS well before a compiler
is actually
Beman Dawes wrote:
In the meantime, you might want to try running the regression tests
using any compiler you have at hand. While we are doing much better with
docs, etc., running the tests still take a bit of getting used to.
I plan to do that, I'm currently using BCB6 so it would be a good
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to say that I think it's the wrong patch. The right patch
would put the swap specialization into _STL::.
It actually sufixes
I assume you mean suffices.
:-)
# if BOOST_WORKAROUND( __BORLANDC__, = 0x0560 )
I would just like to point out that if _USE_OLD_RW_STL is defined, BCB6
uses the roguewave STL from BCB5 and so doesn't have this _STL/std::
conflict. So it may be worth introducing that into the #if somehow.
(I don't define this because I prefer
Peter Dimov wrote:
I think that this specialization is ill-formed if the primary swap isn't
in std. Your code is broken by STLport's tricks, even though it looks
correct. :-)
I think this is the consensus.
Try
template void std::swap( empty lhs, empty rhs )
{
}
instead and see if it
Alisdair Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a problem with the Borland BCB6 compiler specializing std::swap
for user defined types when using the STLport standard library. This
may apply to other compilers using the library as well, but only have
experience with Borland.
An
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
BTW, I have a question:
According to BCB, the primary swap is hidden when some swap is
declared directly in std even for ADL.
That is, not even this works:
using std::swap; swap(x,y);
is this conformant?
Yes, declaring things in std is undefined behavior.
Beman Dawes wrote:
What is the status of the Borland compiler as far as fixes and updates go?
Have they announced any plans?
Borland tend not to announce anything until they are actually shipping
the product. It's an annoying habit, but as the customers have lived
with it all this time I
Beman:
I'd like to be sure that some Booster signs up for this beta and starts
running the Boost regression tests against it. And then follows up with bug
reports to Borland as needed. Any bugs fixed in the compiler before it
ships are bugs Boosters don't have to cope with later.
To the best
David Abrahams wrote:
Err, I don't get it. It seems to me that you only need the hack if
you're going to *specialize* swap. *Using* std::swap should work just
fine.
OK, that's because I was confused g
The following is really a minimal example, so I can be clearer this
time:
#include
Alisdair Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fix I am currently using looks like this in shared_ptr [line 284]
void swap(shared_ptrT other) // never throws
{
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND( __BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x0564) )
_STL::swap(px, other.px);
#else
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alisdair Meredith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fix I am currently using looks like this in shared_ptr [line 284]
void swap(shared_ptrT other) // never throws
{
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND( __BORLANDC__,
21 matches
Mail list logo
