"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are gcc 2.96 (Redhat 7.3) compilation error for
> boost/libs/python/test/opaque.cpp:
>
> http://cci.lbl.gov/~rwgk/tmp/rc_1_30_0_opaque_fail.txt
>
> More recent gcc's don't seems to suffer from this problem.
> I am not sure this is important enough to delay the release any further.
> David?
>
> Ralf
Hmm, looking at:
# define BOOST_PYTHON_OPAQUE_SPECIALIZED_TYPE_ID(Pointee) \
namespace boost { namespace python { \
template<> \
inline type_info type_id(boost::type<Pointee>*) { \
return type_info (typeid (Pointee *)); \
} \
template<> \
inline type_info type_id( \
boost::type<const volatile Pointee &>*) { \
return type_info (typeid (Pointee *)); \
} \
}}
it seems to me that these aren't actually legal specializations
(though I've never specialized functions before so I could be wrong).
Shouldn't that be:
template <>
inline type_info type_id<Pointee>(boost::type<Pointee>*) {
return type_info(typeid(Pointee*));
}
template <>
inline type_info type_id<const volatile Pointee&>(
boost::type<const volatile Pointee&>*) {
return type_info(typeid(Pointee*));
}
??
In the end, I think I'd much rather see this done with traits that
are checked inside a single type_id<T> implementation rather than
doing it like this, but I think that would be too-radical a change.
It would be nice if Gottfried could try to get something working for
GCC 2.96 before we ship, since RedHat kindly put it on so many
systems.
Gottfried?
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
