On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 15:54:21 -0400, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, I think so. Won't boost::is_same< unsigned short, wchar_t >::value be
>true if wchar_t is a typedef, and false if a distinct type?
>
>I'll do some experiments.
In addition to what Dave says (can't use the result in
At 02:10 AM 6/5/2003, Daryle Walker wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 3:54 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>> Hum... I just had a thought. Is it possible to detect if wchar_t is a
>> typedef at compile time?
>>
>> Yes, I think so. Won't boost::is_same< unsigned short, wchar_t
>> >::value be true if
> Gak! These compiler vendors are going to drive us all crazy! What do they
> expect us to do, use ESP to know what compiler options are set?
If you had ESP, then you would know the answer to that :->
John.
___
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://list
On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 3:54 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
Hum... I just had a thought. Is it possible to detect if wchar_t is a
typedef at compile time?
Yes, I think so. Won't boost::is_same< unsigned short, wchar_t
>::value be true if wchar_t is a typedef, and false if a distinct > type?
I'l
At 07:58 AM 6/4/2003, John Maddock wrote:
>
>> That will certainly work, but you shouldn't have to do that since the
>> compiler itself defines _WCHAR_T_DEFINED. Since I made the fix earlier
>this
>> afternoon I am able to compile some non-boost code correctly which had
>> previously be failing.
>
> That will certainly work, but you shouldn't have to do that since the
> compiler itself defines _WCHAR_T_DEFINED. Since I made the fix earlier
this
> afternoon I am able to compile some non-boost code correctly which had
> previously be failing.
Just let me jump in here: you absolutely can not
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:58 AM 6/4/2003, John Maddock wrote:
>
> >One other point: turning wchar_t support on may cause linker errors because
> >you have now changed the name mangling of functions that take wchar_t as an
> >argument - I don't know for sure but I would exp
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So this is yet another case (like /Qoption,c,--arg_dep_lookup) where
> Boost config code just has to assume the option has been set.
Well, the build system can tell boost what option's in use. That
doesn't help users of other build systems, but I know th
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hum... I just had a thought. Is it possible to detect if wchar_t is a
> typedef at compile time?
>
> Yes, I think so. Won't boost::is_same< unsigned short, wchar_t
>>::value be true if wchar_t is a typedef, and false if a distinct type?
Yes, but you can't
At 07:02 AM 6/2/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Since I made the fix earlier this afternoon I am able to compile
>> some non-boost code correctly which had previously be failing.
>
>What fix is that...
Fixes to boost/config/compiler/intel.hpp.
I just did a commit of that file that brings it into s
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 03:09 PM 6/1/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> >"Pavel Vozenilek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>> I'll try to trace where BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T is bei
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 02:50 PM 6/1/2003, Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
>
> >
> >"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> I'll try to trace where BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T is being
> set. I'm not
> >so
> >> worried about ADL,
At 03:08 PM 6/1/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The fresh regression tests are now posted. Here is what changed in the
>> Intel results, presumably as a result of the intel-win32 changes:
>>
>>New fails: config/limits_test
>> integer/integ
At 03:09 PM 6/1/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>"Pavel Vozenilek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> I'll try to trace where BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T is being set. I'm
not
>> so
>>> worried about ADL, at least with V
"Pavel Vozenilek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I'll try to trace where BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T is being set. I'm not
> so
>> worried about ADL, at least with VC++ <7.1.
>>
> You may look on test table
> http://as
At 02:50 PM 6/1/2003, Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
>
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I'll try to trace where BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T is being set. I'm
not
>so
>> worried about ADL, at least with VC++ <7.1.
>>
>You may look on test table
>http://aspn.
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The fresh regression tests are now posted. Here is what changed in the
> Intel results, presumably as a result of the intel-win32 changes:
>
>New fails: config/limits_test
> integer/integer_traits_test
> utility/counting_ite
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'll try to trace where BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T is being set. I'm not
so
> worried about ADL, at least with VC++ <7.1.
>
You may look on test table
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1614864.
(Warnin
18 matches
Mail list logo
