On 10/10/2011 2:08 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote: > On 10/10/2011 1:52 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote: >> On 10/10/2011 12:38 PM, Eric Niebler wrote: >>> >>> Bummer. I suggest adding an rvalue ref overload of operator%= that >>> shares an implementation with the const lvalue one. Should just be a few >>> lines of code. Is that a problem? >> >> Not really a problem. But, %= is just an example of the problems >> (plural with an s). We suspect that it is more widespread. I'll >> see how pervasive the changes need to be and get back to you. > > Ok, adding the %= for rvalue refs for Qi and Karma fixed a lot of > the failing tests. However, I am not sure how to fix the tests > involving Lex (crashes on VC10 but OK on GCC). The compiler > tutorial I am working on also got broken. I am not sure what else > in the examples got broken. It's quite difficult to ascertain > where the problem is because the code builds without errors > but either crashes or does not work as expected at runtime. > This is an insidious critter. > > Hartmut, I committed the fix for Qi and Karma. Can you please > take a look at the Lex regressions? There's a good chance > that the problem with the examples is also related to the Lex > problem.
I just ran the spirit_v2/lex and spirit_v2/lex_regressions test suites on msvc-10.0, and everything passed for me. Is this fixed already? Let me know asap so I know whether to revert my Proto changes. (Note: If they don't make it in this time, these Proto changes will eventually go back in for next release, so Qi/Karma/Lex will need to be fixed eventually.) -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
