And just to throw another monkey wrench in here... In the changes I
added to jira 1105, AsynchIO does not inherit from DispatchHandle any
longer.

-Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:07 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: First tests on the ECFPoller
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 16:51 +0200, Manuel Teira wrote:
> > Andrew Stitcher escribió:
> > ...
> > > It looks to me like either this is a bug in the Sun 
> compiler or the gcc
> > > one.
> > >
> > > As in either the Sun compiler should be able to perform 
> the conversion
> > > even though there is private inheritance is involved. Or the gcc
> > > compiler is allowing a conversion where it shouldn't.
> 
> I think this must be true (and I don't think you've shown
otherwise).
> One behaviour or the other is wrong.
> 
> > >
> > > Is there any possibility of using gcc for your compiles?
> > >
> > > [Not that I'm trying to put you off the Sun compiler, but if gcc
> > > works...]
> > >   
> > Well, I would like to be able to use the Sun Compiler. I 
> also think that 
> > it would be good for the project.
> 
> I completely agree that the more compilers you use the higher the
code
> quality you get in general.
> 
> > 
> > I would like to understand where the problem is. So, please 
> comment on 
> > my (probably wrong) hypothesis:
> > 
> > We have the following inheritance chain:
> > AsynchIO: private DispatchHandle
> > DispatchHandle: public PollerHandle
> > ...
> 
> Sorry, I can't tell from what you've said here what the hypothesis
> actually is.
> 
> I think you are saying something about the difference between actual
> object types and the types being passed. So that 
> dynamic_cast<> behaves
> differently on the two platforms.
> 
> As a side note, it will be difficult to change this inheritance
scheme
> as the lifetime of the AsynchIO object is dependant on it 
> being deleted
> as a DispatchHandle so aggregation of a DispatchHandle in the
AsynchIO
> object won't allow this.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 


Reply via email to