Looping through variadic macro arguments
Hello, I have this macro: #define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "n macro = " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(1, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ for (int i = 0; i < BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__); i++) { \ cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ } The VARIADIC_SIZE is correct and I can access elements using BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM as long as I use a literal. The loop body produces error messages when compiling. BOOST_PP_VARIADICS is 1. The goal is to concatenate all variadic macro arguments to a string. If there a more clever solution, I'm very eager to hear them. Thanks! Florian ERROR MESSAGES: % clang++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp test.cpp:154:3: error: expected expression vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:120:26: note: expanded from macro 'vmacro' cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/elem.hpp:26:101: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM' # define BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(n, ...) BOOST_PP_CAT(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM_, n)(__VA_ARGS__,) ^ 1 error generated. g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp In file included from test.cpp:9:0: test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:120:26: error: expected primary-expression before ')' token cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ test.cpp:154:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:120:26: error: 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM_i' was not declared in this scope cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ test.cpp:154:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^
On 3/18/2016 6:19 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
I have this macro:
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "n macro = " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(1, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ for (int i = 0; i < BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__); i++) { \ cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ }
The VARIADIC_SIZE is correct and I can access elements using BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM as long as I use a literal. The loop body produces error messages when compiling. BOOST_PP_VARIADICS is 1.
Your macro 'vmacro' gets expanded at preprocessor time when it is invoked as 'vmacro(4,5,6)'. At preprocessor time the expansion of 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__)' fails because 'i' is not a valid Boost PP number.
The goal is to concatenate all variadic macro arguments to a string. If there a more clever solution, I'm very eager to hear them.
#include <boost/preprocessor/stringize.hpp> #include <boost/preprocessor/seq/cat.hpp> #include <boost/preprocessor/variadic/to_seq.hpp> cout << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_SEQ_CAT(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))) << endl;
Thanks! Florian
ERROR MESSAGES:
% clang++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp test.cpp:154:3: error: expected expression vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:120:26: note: expanded from macro 'vmacro' cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/elem.hpp:26:101: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM' # define BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(n, ...) BOOST_PP_CAT(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM_, n)(__VA_ARGS__,) ^ 1 error generated.
g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp In file included from test.cpp:9:0: test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:120:26: error: expected primary-expression before ')' token cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ test.cpp:154:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:120:26: error: 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM_i' was not declared in this scope cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ test.cpp:154:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^
Hey, On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:06:26 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/18/2016 6:19 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
I have this macro:
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "n macro = " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(1, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ for (int i = 0; i < BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__); i++) { \ cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ }
The VARIADIC_SIZE is correct and I can access elements using BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM as long as I use a literal. The loop body produces error messages when compiling. BOOST_PP_VARIADICS is 1.
Your macro 'vmacro' gets expanded at preprocessor time when it is invoked as 'vmacro(4,5,6)'. At preprocessor time the expansion of 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__)' fails because 'i' is not a valid Boost PP number.
Thanks for your explanation!
The goal is to concatenate all variadic macro arguments to a string. If there a more clever solution, I'm very eager to hear them.
#include <boost/preprocessor/stringize.hpp> #include <boost/preprocessor/seq/cat.hpp> #include <boost/preprocessor/variadic/to_seq.hpp>
cout << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_SEQ_CAT(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))) << endl;
I also want to write some text between the sequence items, I have made it working with that code: #define PRINT(r, data, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << r-1 << ": " << elem << endl; #define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ So, invoking vmacro(1-2, 5, 6, "Hallo"); prints #define PRINT(r, data, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << r-1 << ": " << elem << endl; #define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ Expression: 1-2 Argument 1: 5 Argument 2: 6 Argument 3: Hallo Any comments on that? How to do it better? Maybe without a helper macro PRINT? I'm a bit surprised I have to use r-1 to get 1 for the first argument. Best, Florian
Thanks! Florian
ERROR MESSAGES:
% clang++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp test.cpp:154:3: error: expected expression vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:120:26: note: expanded from macro 'vmacro' cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/elem.hpp:26:101: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM' # define BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(n, ...) BOOST_PP_CAT(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM_, n)(__VA_ARGS__,) ^ 1 error generated.
g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp In file included from test.cpp:9:0: test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:120:26: error: expected primary-expression before ')' token cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ test.cpp:154:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:120:26: error: 'BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM_i' was not declared in this scope cout << i << ": " << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(i, __VA_ARGS__) << endl; \ ^ test.cpp:154:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(4, 5, 6); ^
On 3/21/2016 4:55 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
snipped ...
I also want to write some text between the sequence items, I have made it working with that code:
#define PRINT(r, data, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << r-1 << ": " << elem << endl;
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \
So, invoking vmacro(1-2, 5, 6, "Hallo"); prints
#define PRINT(r, data, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << r-1 << ": " << elem << endl;
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \
Expression: 1-2 Argument 1: 5 Argument 2: 6 Argument 3: Hallo
Any comments on that? How to do it better? Maybe without a helper macro PRINT? I'm a bit surprised I have to use r-1 to get 1 for the first argument.
The PRINT macro is fine. Almost all Boost PP looping constructs use a helper macro like that. In real life code I would name all macros in uppercase and give them a very distinct name to reduce clashes with other potential C++ identifiers and macros. Look at BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I to get the actual argument index instead of using 'r'. That 'r' in your code above is actually 2,3, and 4 is just luck. The 'next available BOOST_PP_FOR repetition' as described in the doc just happened to be 2,3, and 4 but could theoretically have been any PP number each time and is not related to the index of each argument.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:39:52 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/21/2016 4:55 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
snipped ...
[...]
Any comments on that? How to do it better? Maybe without a helper macro PRINT? I'm a bit surprised I have to use r-1 to get 1 for the first argument.
The PRINT macro is fine. Almost all Boost PP looping constructs use a helper macro like that.
In real life code I would name all macros in uppercase and give them a very distinct name to reduce clashes with other potential C++ identifiers and macros.
Sure!
Look at BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I to get the actual argument index instead of using 'r'.
That 'r' in your code above is actually 2,3, and 4 is just luck. The 'next available BOOST_PP_FOR repetition' as described in the doc just happened to be 2,3, and 4 but could theoretically have been any PP number each time and is not related to the index of each argument.
Ok, try to use FOR_EACH_I, but ran into compilation errors: #define PRINT(r, data, i, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << i << ": " << elem << endl; #define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ but: % g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp && ./a.out :( test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:127:27: error: 'PRINT' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:34: error: expected primary-expression before ',' token BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ In file included from /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/to_seq.hpp:17:0, from test.cpp:11: test.cpp:127:36: error: expression cannot be used as a function BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:73: error: 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ boost 1.60, gcc 5.3.0. The same code, using FOR_EACH works (only the argumentens of PRINT were altered. Thanks! Florian
On 3/22/2016 3:35 PM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:39:52 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/21/2016 4:55 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
snipped ...
[...]
Any comments on that? How to do it better? Maybe without a helper macro PRINT? I'm a bit surprised I have to use r-1 to get 1 for the first argument.
The PRINT macro is fine. Almost all Boost PP looping constructs use a helper macro like that.
In real life code I would name all macros in uppercase and give them a very distinct name to reduce clashes with other potential C++ identifiers and macros.
Sure!
Look at BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I to get the actual argument index instead of using 'r'.
That 'r' in your code above is actually 2,3, and 4 is just luck. The 'next available BOOST_PP_FOR repetition' as described in the doc just happened to be 2,3, and 4 but could theoretically have been any PP number each time and is not related to the index of each argument.
Ok, try to use FOR_EACH_I, but ran into compilation errors:
#define PRINT(r, data, i, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << i << ": " << elem << endl;
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \
What is that final '\' about ? Please show the header files being included.
but:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp && ./a.out :( test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:127:27: error: 'PRINT' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:34: error: expected primary-expression before ',' token BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ In file included from /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/to_seq.hpp:17:0, from test.cpp:11: test.cpp:127:36: error: expression cannot be used as a function BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:73: error: 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^
boost 1.60, gcc 5.3.0.
The same code, using FOR_EACH works (only the argumentens of PRINT were altered.
Thanks!
Florian
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:53:06 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/22/2016 3:35 PM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:39:52 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/21/2016 4:55 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
snipped ...
[...]
Any comments on that? How to do it better? Maybe without a helper macro PRINT? I'm a bit surprised I have to use r-1 to get 1 for the first argument.
The PRINT macro is fine. Almost all Boost PP looping constructs use a helper macro like that.
In real life code I would name all macros in uppercase and give them a very distinct name to reduce clashes with other potential C++ identifiers and macros.
Sure!
Look at BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I to get the actual argument index instead of using 'r'.
That 'r' in your code above is actually 2,3, and 4 is just luck. The 'next available BOOST_PP_FOR repetition' as described in the doc just happened to be 2,3, and 4 but could theoretically have been any PP number each time and is not related to the index of each argument.
Ok, try to use FOR_EACH_I, but ran into compilation errors:
#define PRINT(r, data, i, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << i << ": " << elem << endl;
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \
What is that final '\' about ?
That is obviously unneeded, but not the cause.
Please show the header files being included.
Sorry, my fault. I included the Header for for_each not for for_each_i. Best, Florian
but:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp && ./a.out :( test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:127:27: error: 'PRINT' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:34: error: expected primary-expression before ',' token BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ In file included from /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/to_seq.hpp:17:0, from test.cpp:11: test.cpp:127:36: error: expression cannot be used as a function BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:73: error: 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^
boost 1.60, gcc 5.3.0.
The same code, using FOR_EACH works (only the argumentens of PRINT were altered.
Thanks!
Florian
Hello, another question: I was expecting that the line BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument: % g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^ Is there any way to make it work like that? Thanks a lot! Florian The code looks like that: #define PRINT_ARGUMENT(r, data, i, elem) \ std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; #define assertion(expr, ...) if (!(expr)) { \ std::cerr << "Assertion in " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \ << ", failed expression: " << #expr << std::endl; \ std::cout << BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_SIZE(__VA_ARGS__) << std::endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ std::cerr.flush(); \ std::cout.flush(); \ assert(false); \ } \ On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:53:06 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/22/2016 3:35 PM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:39:52 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/21/2016 4:55 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
snipped ...
[...]
Any comments on that? How to do it better? Maybe without a helper macro PRINT? I'm a bit surprised I have to use r-1 to get 1 for the first argument.
The PRINT macro is fine. Almost all Boost PP looping constructs use a helper macro like that.
In real life code I would name all macros in uppercase and give them a very distinct name to reduce clashes with other potential C++ identifiers and macros.
Sure!
Look at BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I to get the actual argument index instead of using 'r'.
That 'r' in your code above is actually 2,3, and 4 is just luck. The 'next available BOOST_PP_FOR repetition' as described in the doc just happened to be 2,3, and 4 but could theoretically have been any PP number each time and is not related to the index of each argument.
Ok, try to use FOR_EACH_I, but ran into compilation errors:
#define PRINT(r, data, i, elem) \ cout << "Argument " << i << ": " << elem << endl;
#define vmacro(expr, ...) \ cout << "Expression: " << #expr << endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \
What is that final '\' about ?
Please show the header files being included.
but:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 -rdynamic -ldl test.cpp && ./a.out :( test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:127:27: error: 'PRINT' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:34: error: expected primary-expression before ',' token BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ In file included from /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/variadic/to_seq.hpp:17:0, from test.cpp:11: test.cpp:127:36: error: expression cannot be used as a function BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^ test.cpp:127:73: error: 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I' was not declared in this scope BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT, , BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__)); \ ^ test.cpp:159:3: note: in expansion of macro 'vmacro' vmacro(1-2, 5, 6); ^
boost 1.60, gcc 5.3.0.
The same code, using FOR_EACH works (only the argumentens of PRINT were altered.
Thanks!
Florian
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
another question: I was expecting that the line
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__));
in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^
Is there any way to make it work like that?
When you specify '...' to indicate variadic arguments you must always supply at least one argument. That's part of the C++ standard. The way to make 'vm' work is to specify: #define vm(...) and then extract your first argument and pass the remaining arguments, if they exist, to your BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I expansion. I will let you figure out how to do that, but if you find you can't figure it out post back and I will show you the code.
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:56:25 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
another question: I was expecting that the line
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__));
in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^
Is there any way to make it work like that?
When you specify '...' to indicate variadic arguments you must always supply at least one argument. That's part of the C++ standard.
The way to make 'vm' work is to specify:
#define vm(...)
and then extract your first argument and pass the remaining arguments, if they exist, to your BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I expansion. I will let you figure out how to do that, but if you find you can't figure it out post back and I will show you the code.
Hey, ok, I used SEQ_TAIL for that and it works nicely: #define PRINT_ARGUMENT(r, data, i, elem) \ std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; #define assertion(...) if (not BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \ std::cerr << "Assertion in " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \ << ", failed expression: " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) << std::endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_SEQ_TAIL(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))); \ std::cerr.flush(); \ std::cout.flush(); \ assert(false); \ } as you can see, it's going to be an asssert macro. STRINGIZE gives me the literal expression, like the # operator. Any comments? Best Thanks, Florian
On 3/24/2016 4:42 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:56:25 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
another question: I was expecting that the line
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__));
in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^
Is there any way to make it work like that?
When you specify '...' to indicate variadic arguments you must always supply at least one argument. That's part of the C++ standard.
The way to make 'vm' work is to specify:
#define vm(...)
and then extract your first argument and pass the remaining arguments, if they exist, to your BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I expansion. I will let you figure out how to do that, but if you find you can't figure it out post back and I will show you the code.
Hey,
ok, I used SEQ_TAIL for that and it works nicely:
That's the solution. I could add a BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TAIL but keeping the Boost PP variadic macros to a minimum was the idea when they were created.
#define PRINT_ARGUMENT(r, data, i, elem) \ std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl;
#define assertion(...) if (not BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
Wouldn't if !(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \ be better ?
std::cerr << "Assertion in " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \ << ", failed expression: " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) << std::endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_SEQ_TAIL(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))); \ std::cerr.flush(); \ std::cout.flush(); \ assert(false); \ }
as you can see, it's going to be an asssert macro. STRINGIZE gives me the literal expression, like the # operator.
Any comments?
I'm glad Boost PP is useful to you <g>. If you are further interested in preprocessor programming in general you might find my Boost VMD library interesting ( shameless plug ) <g>.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:00:57 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2016 4:42 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:56:25 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
another question: I was expecting that the line
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__));
in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^
Is there any way to make it work like that?
When you specify '...' to indicate variadic arguments you must always supply at least one argument. That's part of the C++ standard.
The way to make 'vm' work is to specify:
#define vm(...)
and then extract your first argument and pass the remaining arguments, if they exist, to your BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I expansion. I will let you figure out how to do that, but if you find you can't figure it out post back and I will show you the code.
Hey,
ok, I used SEQ_TAIL for that and it works nicely:
That's the solution.
I could add a BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TAIL but keeping the Boost PP variadic macros to a minimum was the idea when they were created.
#define PRINT_ARGUMENT(r, data, i, elem) \ std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl;
#define assertion(...) if (not BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
Wouldn't
if !(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
be better ?
The if condition needs to be enclosed by parens, don't it? This piece of code does not compile? Or do you propose to replace the "not" by "!"? I think they are the same, I just like the "not" better, since it's more literal.
std::cerr << "Assertion in " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \ << ", failed expression: " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) << std::endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_SEQ_TAIL(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))); \ std::cerr.flush(); \ std::cout.flush(); \ assert(false); \ }
as you can see, it's going to be an asssert macro. STRINGIZE gives me the literal expression, like the # operator.
Any comments?
I'm glad Boost PP is useful to you <g>. If you are further interested in preprocessor programming in general you might find my Boost VMD library interesting ( shameless plug ) <g>.
Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. But I try to keep preprocessor programming to a minimum. Best, Florian
On 3/29/2016 6:49 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:00:57 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2016 4:42 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:56:25 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
another question: I was expecting that the line
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__));
in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^
Is there any way to make it work like that?
When you specify '...' to indicate variadic arguments you must always supply at least one argument. That's part of the C++ standard.
The way to make 'vm' work is to specify:
#define vm(...)
and then extract your first argument and pass the remaining arguments, if they exist, to your BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I expansion. I will let you figure out how to do that, but if you find you can't figure it out post back and I will show you the code.
Hey,
ok, I used SEQ_TAIL for that and it works nicely:
That's the solution.
I could add a BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TAIL but keeping the Boost PP variadic macros to a minimum was the idea when they were created.
#define PRINT_ARGUMENT(r, data, i, elem) \ std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl;
#define assertion(...) if (not BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
Wouldn't
if !(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
be better ?
The if condition needs to be enclosed by parens, don't it? This piece of code does not compile?
Yes, of course. My error ( wipes egg off face ).
Or do you propose to replace the "not" by "!"? I think they are the same, I just like the "not" better, since it's more literal.
OK. I rarely use the alphabetic alternatives to the logical operators.
std::cerr << "Assertion in " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \ << ", failed expression: " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) << std::endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_SEQ_TAIL(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))); \ std::cerr.flush(); \ std::cout.flush(); \ assert(false); \ }
as you can see, it's going to be an asssert macro. STRINGIZE gives me the literal expression, like the # operator.
Any comments?
I'm glad Boost PP is useful to you <g>. If you are further interested in preprocessor programming in general you might find my Boost VMD library interesting ( shameless plug ) <g>.
Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. But I try to keep preprocessor programming to a minimum.
Sure. There are some really neat things you can do using the preprocessor using Boost PP, and Boost VMD extends that realm when variadic parameters are available, as they are for all modern compilers. Both libraries are aids for more complicated C++ macro writing than normal.
Hey, I have integrated the code in our project now and it fails to compile with some older clang version. It compiles fine with clang++ 3.7.1 and g++ 5.3.0 on my arch machine as well as g++ 4.8.4 on our ubuntu server, but fails with clang++ 3.4 on this machine as well as the travis The complete compiler messages are at http://pastebin.com/HgjgCfsH it is mostly something like that: error: unknown type name 'BOOST_PP_IIF_0' assertion( reinterpret_cast<Vector&>(*this).size()==toAssign.size() ); The assertions code is at https://github.com/precice/precice/blob/develop/src/utils/assertion.hpp as well as all other code files. If you want to give it a try, you can clone the project and use clang++ -o build/debug-nopetsc-nompi/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.o -c -Wall -std=c++11 -fPIC -Wsign-compare -g3 -O0 -DDebug -DAsserts -DPRECICE_NO_PETSC -DEIGEN_INITIALIZE_MATRICES_BY_NAN -DPRECICE_NO_MPI -DNPY_NO_DEPRECATED_API=NPY_1_7_API_VERSION -Isrc -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/python2.7 -I/usr/include/python2.7/numpy src/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.cpp (it's also included in the pastebin above) Do you have any idea? Best, Florian On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:32:54 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/29/2016 6:49 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:00:57 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/24/2016 4:42 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:56:25 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2016 11:45 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hello,
another question: I was expecting that the line
BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__));
in a macro #define vm(expr, ...) expands to nothing, when the the macro is called with just one argument vm(false), but it fails, only when called with just one argument:
% g++ -std=c++11 -g3 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'void f(int)': test.cpp:109:51: error: expected primary-expression before '<<' token std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl; ^ /usr/include/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:85:66: note: in expansion of macro 'PRINT_ARGUMENT' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i, sz) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ test.cpp:140:1: note: in expansion of macro 'assertion' assertion(!true); ^
Is there any way to make it work like that?
When you specify '...' to indicate variadic arguments you must always supply at least one argument. That's part of the C++ standard.
The way to make 'vm' work is to specify:
#define vm(...)
and then extract your first argument and pass the remaining arguments, if they exist, to your BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I expansion. I will let you figure out how to do that, but if you find you can't figure it out post back and I will show you the code.
Hey,
ok, I used SEQ_TAIL for that and it works nicely:
That's the solution.
I could add a BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TAIL but keeping the Boost PP variadic macros to a minimum was the idea when they were created.
#define PRINT_ARGUMENT(r, data, i, elem) \ std::cerr << " Argument " << i << ": " << elem << std::endl;
#define assertion(...) if (not BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
Wouldn't
if !(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) { \
be better ?
The if condition needs to be enclosed by parens, don't it? This piece of code does not compile?
Yes, of course. My error ( wipes egg off face ).
Or do you propose to replace the "not" by "!"? I think they are the same, I just like the "not" better, since it's more literal.
OK. I rarely use the alphabetic alternatives to the logical operators.
std::cerr << "Assertion in " << __FILE__ << ":" << __LINE__ \ << ", failed expression: " << BOOST_PP_STRINGIZE(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_ELEM(0, __VA_ARGS__)) << std::endl; \ BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(PRINT_ARGUMENT,, BOOST_PP_SEQ_TAIL(BOOST_PP_VARIADIC_TO_SEQ(__VA_ARGS__))); \ std::cerr.flush(); \ std::cout.flush(); \ assert(false); \ }
as you can see, it's going to be an asssert macro. STRINGIZE gives me the literal expression, like the # operator.
Any comments?
I'm glad Boost PP is useful to you <g>. If you are further interested in preprocessor programming in general you might find my Boost VMD library interesting ( shameless plug ) <g>.
Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. But I try to keep preprocessor programming to a minimum.
Sure.
There are some really neat things you can do using the preprocessor using Boost PP, and Boost VMD extends that realm when variadic parameters are available, as they are for all modern compilers.
Both libraries are aids for more complicated C++ macro writing than normal.
On 3/30/2016 4:35 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
I have integrated the code in our project now and it fails to compile with some older clang version.
It compiles fine with clang++ 3.7.1 and g++ 5.3.0 on my arch machine as well as g++ 4.8.4 on our ubuntu server, but fails with clang++ 3.4 on this machine as well as the travis
The complete compiler messages are at http://pastebin.com/HgjgCfsH it is mostly something like that:
error: unknown type name 'BOOST_PP_IIF_0' assertion( reinterpret_cast<Vector&>(*this).size()==toAssign.size() );
The assertions code is at https://github.com/precice/precice/blob/develop/src/utils/assertion.hpp
as well as all other code files.
If you want to give it a try, you can clone the project and use
clang++ -o build/debug-nopetsc-nompi/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.o -c -Wall -std=c++11 -fPIC -Wsign-compare -g3 -O0 -DDebug -DAsserts -DPRECICE_NO_PETSC -DEIGEN_INITIALIZE_MATRICES_BY_NAN -DPRECICE_NO_MPI -DNPY_NO_DEPRECATED_API=NPY_1_7_API_VERSION -Isrc -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/python2.7 -I/usr/include/python2.7/numpy src/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.cpp
(it's also included in the pastebin above)
Do you have any idea?
Would you please post a complete example along with your command line as a Boost bug report for the preprocessor library ? That way I am more likely to take a look at it. My guess, without knowing the details of your example, is just a clang-3.4 bug which has been fixed in a later release but if your problem is easily reproducable I can add a test to the preprocessor tests, based on your example, which shows the clang-3.4 bug. Currently my preprocessor tests using clang-3.4 do not show any problems so incorporating such a test showing a problem will be worthwhile for me.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:42:41 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/30/2016 4:35 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
I have integrated the code in our project now and it fails to compile with some older clang version.
It compiles fine with clang++ 3.7.1 and g++ 5.3.0 on my arch machine as well as g++ 4.8.4 on our ubuntu server, but fails with clang++ 3.4 on this machine as well as the travis
The complete compiler messages are at http://pastebin.com/HgjgCfsH it is mostly something like that:
error: unknown type name 'BOOST_PP_IIF_0' assertion( reinterpret_cast<Vector&>(*this).size()==toAssign.size() );
The assertions code is at https://github.com/precice/precice/blob/develop/src/utils/assertion.hpp
as well as all other code files.
If you want to give it a try, you can clone the project and use
clang++ -o build/debug-nopetsc-nompi/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.o -c -Wall -std=c++11 -fPIC -Wsign-compare -g3 -O0 -DDebug -DAsserts -DPRECICE_NO_PETSC -DEIGEN_INITIALIZE_MATRICES_BY_NAN -DPRECICE_NO_MPI -DNPY_NO_DEPRECATED_API=NPY_1_7_API_VERSION -Isrc -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/python2.7 -I/usr/include/python2.7/numpy src/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.cpp
(it's also included in the pastebin above)
Do you have any idea?
Would you please post a complete example along with your command line as a Boost bug report for the preprocessor library ? That way I am more likely to take a look at it. My guess, without knowing the details of your example, is just a clang-3.4 bug which has been fixed in a later release but if your problem is easily reproducable I can add a test to the preprocessor tests, based on your example, which shows the clang-3.4 bug. Currently my preprocessor tests using clang-3.4 do not show any problems so incorporating such a test showing a problem will be worthwhile for me.
Hey, I'm very happy to help that way. I was able to reproduce that bug in a small piece of code and was doing some tests using different versions. The bug is triggered using all clang versions (3.4 and 3.7.1 at least) if using boost 1.55, and obviously was fixed in 1.56. Do you still want me to open a bug report? Best, Florian
On 3/31/2016 4:00 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:42:41 -0400 Edward Diener <eldiener@tropicsoft.com> wrote:
On 3/30/2016 4:35 AM, Florian Lindner wrote:
Hey,
I have integrated the code in our project now and it fails to compile with some older clang version.
It compiles fine with clang++ 3.7.1 and g++ 5.3.0 on my arch machine as well as g++ 4.8.4 on our ubuntu server, but fails with clang++ 3.4 on this machine as well as the travis
The complete compiler messages are at http://pastebin.com/HgjgCfsH it is mostly something like that:
error: unknown type name 'BOOST_PP_IIF_0' assertion( reinterpret_cast<Vector&>(*this).size()==toAssign.size() );
The assertions code is at https://github.com/precice/precice/blob/develop/src/utils/assertion.hpp
as well as all other code files.
If you want to give it a try, you can clone the project and use
clang++ -o build/debug-nopetsc-nompi/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.o -c -Wall -std=c++11 -fPIC -Wsign-compare -g3 -O0 -DDebug -DAsserts -DPRECICE_NO_PETSC -DEIGEN_INITIALIZE_MATRICES_BY_NAN -DPRECICE_NO_MPI -DNPY_NO_DEPRECATED_API=NPY_1_7_API_VERSION -Isrc -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/python2.7 -I/usr/include/python2.7/numpy src/tarch/configuration/ConfigurationRegistry.cpp
(it's also included in the pastebin above)
Do you have any idea?
Would you please post a complete example along with your command line as a Boost bug report for the preprocessor library ? That way I am more likely to take a look at it. My guess, without knowing the details of your example, is just a clang-3.4 bug which has been fixed in a later release but if your problem is easily reproducable I can add a test to the preprocessor tests, based on your example, which shows the clang-3.4 bug. Currently my preprocessor tests using clang-3.4 do not show any problems so incorporating such a test showing a problem will be worthwhile for me.
Hey,
I'm very happy to help that way.
I was able to reproduce that bug in a small piece of code and was doing some tests using different versions.
The bug is triggered using all clang versions (3.4 and 3.7.1 at least) if using boost 1.55, and obviously was fixed in 1.56.
Do you still want me to open a bug report?
If the bug no longer exists in the latest Boost release then there is no longer a reason to open a bug report. But if you can reproduce the bug using the latest Boost release a bug report would be very helpful. I realize many end-users do not use the latest Boost release but it is very difficult solving problems for end-users when a bug they have encountered has been subsequently fixed in a later Boost release than they are using.
participants (2)
-
Edward Diener -
Florian Lindner