On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:51 PM, lcaminiti <lorcaminiti@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul Mensonides wrote
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:27:40 -0700, lcaminiti wrote:
Is (BOOST_PP_VALUE) / 1000000000UL not a valid constant expression on Sun 64-bits machines?
32 vs. 64-bit shouldn't make a difference to the mechanism. I suppose it might matter if something was less than 32-bit.
I can't reproduce this error on my Sun C++ compiler installed on 32-bit Ubuntu Linux... so maybe this is about the actual Sun machine and not the Sun compiler... However, all Boost.Preprocessor tests pass on Sun...
http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/preprocessor.html
Any suggestion?
Thanks a lot. --Lorenzo
I have no idea what the problem is (and I don't have access to the compiler/architecture to figure it out). What's BOOST_PP_VALUE defined as?
It's a bit different for me to be sure about what was going on but I think the following caused the error:
# define BOOST_PP_ITERATION_PARAMS_1 \ (3, (0, BOOS_PP_SUB(BOOST_FUNCTIONAL_OVERLOADED_FUNCTION_CONFIG_OVERLOAD_MAX, 2), \ "boost/functional/overloaded_function.hpp")) # include BOOST_PP_ITERATE() // Iterate over function arity.
The issue goes away if I remove the PP_SUB from within the PARAMS_1 definition (that's how I worked around the issue, I iterate 2 to MAX and then SUB 2 from within the iteration frame).
Is that expected or it's a bug in the Sun pp macro expansion? This issue only happened on Sun...
Did you try simply *_OVERLOAD_MAX - 2? The parameters supplied via ITERATION_PARAMS_x are (documented to be) evaluated parameters, so I should think the aforementioned should work (of course, I would think SUB should work, too). - Jeff