question regarding the new BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER
It looks to me that using BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will properly address situation I have with boost/serialization/shared_ptr132. Shouldn't BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER be also defined for borland compilers 5.6x and perhaps others? Robert Ramey
Robert Ramey wrote:
It looks to me that using BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will properly address situation I have with boost/serialization/shared_ptr132.
Shouldn't BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER be also defined for borland compilers 5.6x and perhaps others?
I've no idea: does it fail the tests? If so then yes for sure :-) John.
John Maddock wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
It looks to me that using BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will properly address situation I have with boost/serialization/shared_ptr132.
Shouldn't BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER be also defined for borland compilers 5.6x and perhaps others?
I've no idea: does it fail the tests? If so then yes for sure :-)
Hmmm, seems the current tests pass with Borland (5.6.4 and 5.8.2), do you have a test case for the problem you're working around so we can see if it's the same issue? Thanks, John.
I've got a problem with Trak Ticket #1285 which I believe BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will resolve for VC 9 and I was wondering if would be used to eliminate the hack for borland that's in there Robert Ramey John Maddock wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
It looks to me that using BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will properly address situation I have with boost/serialization/shared_ptr132.
Shouldn't BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER be also defined for borland compilers 5.6x and perhaps others?
I've no idea: does it fail the tests? If so then yes for sure :-)
Hmmm, seems the current tests pass with Borland (5.6.4 and 5.8.2), do you have a test case for the problem you're working around so we can see if it's the same issue?
Thanks, John.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Robert Ramey wrote:
I've got a problem with Trak Ticket #1285 which I believe BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will resolve for VC 9 and I was wondering if would be used to eliminate the hack for borland that's in there
"using-directive in namespace scope" has been broken under msvc for years. (It sometimes results in introducing names into the global namespace!) Hence, it should not be used. BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER is a new problem under msvc-9.0. Regards, -- Shunsuke Sogame
Robert Ramey wrote:
I've got a problem with Trak Ticket #1285 which I believe BOOST_NO_ADL_BARRIER will resolve for VC 9 and I was wondering if would be used to eliminate the hack for borland that's in there
This appears to be a different issue, if you want a Boost.Config macro for it, I'd suggest something like BOOST_LEAKY_USING_DECLARATIONS unless someone has a better name? Cheers, John.
participants (3)
-
John Maddock -
Robert Ramey -
shunsuke