On 3/26/2017 1:38 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov via Boost Sent: 26 March 2017 00:52 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Peter Dimov Subject: Re: [boost] Clang 4.0.0 MPL error in Boost next.hpp and prior.hpp
Edward Diener wrote:
Try running all the Boost PP tests <g>. I would be very surprised if they worked in -fno-ms-compatibility mode. I will try it myself with clang targeting VC++ using clang-win.
Even if all the PP tests don't pass, if what MPL needs works, that would at least solve Paul's immediate problem. (And not only his, I suppose.)
My current needs are indeed quite simple (and might be circumnavigated by removing use of float_distance.hpp (thus next.hpp) checking the generation of some simple numerical code.
So I'll give that all a try.
I remain still confused as to what controls the choice of clang-linux and clang-win, and what needs to switched.
Normal use of the clang toolset means clang-linux on Linux and Windows, and clang-darwin on the Mac.
Perhaps trying to use some of the features in
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2015/12/04/clang-with-microsoft-code...
will enlighten me.
This probably needs the clang-win toolset since the backend is VC++ as I understand it, even with -fno-ms-compatibility. However because the docs are mostly non-existent I really do not know ( or personally care because I would not touch clang targeting VC++ as it is now implemented in the preprocessor ).
With the compatibility mode on, and providing an include to the MSVC cstddef, I still get references to clang-linux. So does this mean that I am/should be using mingw cstddef and libstd++ for STL?
I'm very grateful for the all thought and work going into this meanwhile.
Does all this mean that I would be better off getting the very newest VS update? (A task that I need to do anyway sometime).
Thanks
Paul