On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 June 2012 04:39, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
In its initial release (1.36), Boost Exception did not support BOOST_NO_RTTI configurations, which seemed reasonable because most compilers require RTTI for exception handling. The workaround was to #define BOOST_EXCEPTION_DISABLE under BOOST_NO_RTTI. A permanent fix was committed to trunk two weeks later, and released with 1.37.
If we actually want to improve the process, that suggests to me that it'd be useful to have at least one tester running with rtti disabled (and perhaps another with exceptions disabled) and that we might want to reconsider point releases, which is hopefully easier with a modularised git setup.
Yes, this is exactly why the problem wasn't detected before the release: we don't test that configuration. RTTI is particularly tricky because it isn't a simple on-off thing, there's BOOST_NO_RTTI and a separate BOOST_NO_TYPEID, plus there is an implicit link between RTTI and exception handling in some (most?) compilers. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode