On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:55:37AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:29:35PM -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
These three lines near the end of boost/type_traits/is_convertable.hpp:
TT_AUX_IS_CONVERTIBLE_FROM_FLOAT_CV_SPEC(float) TT_AUX_IS_CONVERTIBLE_FROM_FLOAT_CV_SPEC(double) TT_AUX_IS_CONVERTIBLE_FROM_FLOAT_CV_SPEC(long double)
don't compile on GCC 3.4.1 when -pedantic is specified.
So, there is probably at least a GCC bug here. Does anyone have any idea what this is about? $ g++ -pedantic -I../boost -c stuff.cpp In file included from stuff.cpp:1: ../boost/boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp:274: error: long, short, signed or unsigned used invalidly for `type name' ../boost/boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp:274: error: long, short, signed or unsigned used invalidly for `type name' ../boost/boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp:274: error: redefinition of `struct boost::is_convertible<float, int64_t>'
I think it's due to the use of "long long", which isn't allowed in -pedantic mode. Or something like that. Maybe it's long double.
FWIW, changing line 263 of is_convertible.hpp to use "int64_t" rather than "long long" causes the same (unhelpful) diagnostic on unix. So it seems that in -pedantic mode mingw uses int64_t instead of "long long", which breaks as soon as you say "[un]signed long long", because int64_t is by definition sugned (uint64_t is the unsigned equivalent).
The redefinition errors are presumably because it isn't distinguishing between "signed long long" and "unsigned long long" as template params.
Or rather, it (correctly) can't distinguish between int64_t and int64_t. jon -- No sig today