[math/common_factor] bunch o' fixes
Hello, The attached patch contains some modifications to common_factor_test.cpp that make this file compile under MSVC 6.5 (and also possibly under MSVC 7.0 and CW 9.4, all of which are failing now): 1. Static constants haven been redeclared using BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT. 2. my_wrapped_integer contains member template friend declarations, which older compilers do not support: replaced with non-template declarations that serve the same practical purposes. 3. MSVC++ 6.5/7.0 seem to have problems with Barton-Nackman injected operators when the associated type is instantiated only inside template code. The problem is solved by forcing instantiations of the offending types outside of the template code. This problem has already been reported elsewhere: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/10/111935.php 4. MSVC 6.5 does not have operator<<(ostream,__int64) nor operator<<(ostream, unsigned __int64), as reported in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;168440 Solved by adding appropriate overloads inside namespace std. Any objections to this being commited to HEAD and RC_1_34_0? Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo 10a11
// 01 Dec 2006 Various fixes for old compilers (Joaquín M López Muñoz) 19a21 #include <boost/detail/workaround.hpp> 53c55 < static int const id = ID;
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int,id = ID);
87,89c89 < template < typename Ch, class Tr > < friend std::basic_istream<Ch, Tr> & < operator >>( std::basic_istream<Ch, Tr> &i, self_type &x ) ---
friend std::istream & operator >>( std::istream &i, self_type &x )
92,94c92 < template < typename Ch, class Tr > < friend std::basic_ostream<Ch, Tr> & < operator <<( std::basic_ostream<Ch, Tr> &o, self_type const &x ) ---
friend std::ostream & operator <<( std::ostream &o, self_type const &x )
107a106,112
// Without these explicit instantiations, MSVC++ 6.5/7.0 does not find // some friend operators in certain contexts. MyInt1 dummy1; MyUnsigned1 dummy2; MyInt2 dummy3; MyUnsigned2 dummy4;
139c144 < static const bool is_specialized = limits_type::is_specialized; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_specialized = limits_type::is_specialized);
144,149c149,154 < static const int digits = limits_type::digits; < static const int digits10 = limits_type::digits10; < static const bool is_signed = limits_type::is_signed; < static const bool is_integer = limits_type::is_integer; < static const bool is_exact = limits_type::is_exact; < static const int radix = limits_type::radix; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, digits = limits_type::digits); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, digits10 = limits_type::digits10); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_signed = limits_type::is_signed); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_integer = limits_type::is_integer); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_exact = limits_type::is_exact); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, radix = limits_type::radix);
153,162c158,167 < static const int min_exponent = limits_type::min_exponent; < static const int min_exponent10 = limits_type::min_exponent10; < static const int max_exponent = limits_type::max_exponent; < static const int max_exponent10 = limits_type::max_exponent10; < < static const bool has_infinity = limits_type::has_infinity; < static const bool has_quiet_NaN = limits_type::has_quiet_NaN; < static const bool has_signaling_NaN = limits_type::has_signaling_NaN; < static const float_denorm_style has_denorm = limits_type::has_denorm; < static const bool has_denorm_loss = limits_type::has_denorm_loss; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, min_exponent = limits_type::min_exponent); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, min_exponent10 = limits_type::min_exponent10); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, max_exponent = limits_type::max_exponent); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, max_exponent10 = limits_type::max_exponent10);
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_infinity = limits_type::has_infinity); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_quiet_NaN = limits_type::has_quiet_NaN); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_signaling_NaN = limits_type::has_signaling_NaN); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(float_denorm_style, has_denorm = limits_type::has_denorm); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_denorm_loss = limits_type::has_denorm_loss);
169,175c174,180 < static const bool is_iec559 = limits_type::is_iec559; < static const bool is_bounded = limits_type::is_bounded; < static const bool is_modulo = limits_type::is_modulo; < < static const bool traps = limits_type::traps; < static const bool tinyness_before = limits_type::tinyness_before; < static const float_round_style round_style = limits_type::round_style; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_iec559 = limits_type::is_iec559); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_bounded = limits_type::is_bounded); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_modulo = limits_type::is_modulo);
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, traps = limits_type::traps); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, tinyness_before = limits_type::tinyness_before); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(float_round_style, round_style = limits_type::round_style);
186c191 < static const bool is_specialized = limits_type::is_specialized; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_specialized = limits_type::is_specialized);
191,196c196,201 < static const int digits = limits_type::digits; < static const int digits10 = limits_type::digits10; < static const bool is_signed = limits_type::is_signed; < static const bool is_integer = limits_type::is_integer; < static const bool is_exact = limits_type::is_exact; < static const int radix = limits_type::radix; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, digits = limits_type::digits); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, digits10 = limits_type::digits10); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_signed = limits_type::is_signed); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_integer = limits_type::is_integer); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_exact = limits_type::is_exact); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, radix = limits_type::radix);
200,209c205,214 < static const int min_exponent = limits_type::min_exponent; < static const int min_exponent10 = limits_type::min_exponent10; < static const int max_exponent = limits_type::max_exponent; < static const int max_exponent10 = limits_type::max_exponent10; < < static const bool has_infinity = limits_type::has_infinity; < static const bool has_quiet_NaN = limits_type::has_quiet_NaN; < static const bool has_signaling_NaN = limits_type::has_signaling_NaN; < static const float_denorm_style has_denorm = limits_type::has_denorm; < static const bool has_denorm_loss = limits_type::has_denorm_loss; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, min_exponent = limits_type::min_exponent); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, min_exponent10 = limits_type::min_exponent10); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, max_exponent = limits_type::max_exponent); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(int, max_exponent10 = limits_type::max_exponent10);
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_infinity = limits_type::has_infinity); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_quiet_NaN = limits_type::has_quiet_NaN); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_signaling_NaN = limits_type::has_signaling_NaN); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(float_denorm_style, has_denorm = limits_type::has_denorm); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, has_denorm_loss = limits_type::has_denorm_loss);
217,223c222,228 < static const bool is_iec559 = limits_type::is_iec559; < static const bool is_bounded = limits_type::is_bounded; < static const bool is_modulo = limits_type::is_modulo; < < static const bool traps = limits_type::traps; < static const bool tinyness_before = limits_type::tinyness_before; < static const float_round_style round_style = limits_type::round_style; ---
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_iec559 = limits_type::is_iec559); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_bounded = limits_type::is_bounded); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, is_modulo = limits_type::is_modulo);
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, traps = limits_type::traps); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(bool, tinyness_before = limits_type::tinyness_before); BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(float_round_style, round_style = limits_type::round_style);
227c232,242 < } // namespace std ---
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC,<1300) // MSVC 6.0 lacks operator<< for __int64, see // http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;168440
inline ostream& operator<<(ostream& os, __int64 i) { char buf[20]; sprintf(buf,"%I64d", i); os << buf; return os; } 228a244,253 inline ostream& operator<<(ostream& os, unsigned __int64 i) { char buf[20]; sprintf(buf,"%I64u", i); os << buf; return os; } #endif
} // namespace std
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Hello,
The attached patch contains some modifications to common_factor_test.cpp
that make this file compile under MSVC 6.5 (and also possibly under MSVC 7.0 and CW 9.4, all of which are failing now):
Hasn't John posted a patch to fix the same? Daryle, are you around? Can you please indicate if the patches are fine, or not, or when you'll have the time to look at them, or what else should be done? - Volodya
Vladimir Prus ha escrito:
JoaquÃn Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Hello,
The attached patch contains some modifications to common_factor_test.cpp
that make this file compile under MSVC 6.5 (and also possibly under MSVC 7.0 and CW 9.4, all of which are failing now):
Hasn't John posted a patch to fix the same?
Ouch! I wasn't aware John already attacked this one. I've looked up his post, compared the patches and, IMHO, looks like mine is slightly more preferable because it does not disable the UDT tests for broken compilers. Anyway, what we need is that either patch is applied so that we begin clearing down the few remaining regressions between us and 1.34.0 beta1. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Ouch! I wasn't aware John already attacked this one. I've looked up his post, compared the patches and, IMHO, looks like mine is slightly more preferable because it does not disable the UDT tests for broken compilers.
In that case, I'm happy to go with yours :-)
Anyway, what we need is that either patch is applied so that we begin clearing down the few remaining regressions between us and 1.34.0 beta1.
Ain't that the truth! John.
----- Mensaje original ----- De: John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> Fecha: Viernes, Diciembre 1, 2006 5:35 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] [math/common_factor] bunch o' fixes Para: boost@lists.boost.org
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Ouch! I wasn't aware John already attacked this one. I've looked up his post, compared the patches and, IMHO, looks like mine is slightly> more preferable because it does not disable the UDT tests for broken compilers.
In that case, I'm happy to go with yours :-)
Anyway, what we need is that either patch is applied so that we begin> clearing down the few remaining regressions between us and 1.34.0 beta1.
Ain't that the truth!
John.
What is Daryle's opinion on this? He's been around the list as of lately. If the patch is accepted, would anyone of you care to do the commit? I'm without CVS write access till next Monday. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
"JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" ha escrito:
----- Mensaje original ----- De: John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> Fecha: Viernes, Diciembre 1, 2006 5:35 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] [math/common_factor] bunch o' fixes Para: boost@lists.boost.org
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
Ouch! I wasn't aware John already attacked this one. I've looked up his post, compared the patches and, IMHO, looks like mine is slightly> more preferable because it does not disable the UDT tests for broken compilers.
In that case, I'm happy to go with yours :-)
Anyway, what we need is that either patch is applied so that we begin> clearing down the few remaining regressions between us and 1.34.0 beta1.
Ain't that the truth!
John.
What is Daryle's opinion on this? He's been around the list as of lately.
Having received no objection, I've just commited the patch to HEAD and RC_1_34_0. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
participants (4)
-
"JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" -
Joaquín Mª López Muñoz
-
John Maddock -
Vladimir Prus