[PATCH: MPL] Compiling with gcc 4.4.0 -std=c++0x
Due to pre-processor changes in gcc 4.4.0, MPL fails to compile given -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x on the command line. The attached patch addresses this issue. This is a works-for-me solution, YMMV. Chris
on Mon Aug 18 2008, "Chris Fairles" <chris.fairles-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Due to pre-processor changes in gcc 4.4.0, MPL fails to compile given -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x on the command line.
The attached patch addresses this issue. This is a works-for-me solution, YMMV.
Can you put this in the Trac please? Thanks, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Mon Aug 18 2008, "Chris Fairles" <chris.fairles-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Due to pre-processor changes in gcc 4.4.0, MPL fails to compile given -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x on the command line.
The attached patch addresses this issue. This is a works-for-me solution, YMMV.
Can you put this in the Trac please?
Done. http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2225
Thanks, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
2008/8/19 Chris Fairles <chris.fairles@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Mon Aug 18 2008, "Chris Fairles" <chris.fairles-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Due to pre-processor changes in gcc 4.4.0, MPL fails to compile given -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x on the command line.
The attached patch addresses this issue. This is a works-for-me solution, YMMV.
Can you put this in the Trac please?
Done.
This has come up before. It's actually a problem with the preprocessor library and gcc 4.4's preprocessor. I wrote about it here: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/07/139765.php I was going to write to the gcc people about this, but never got round to it. If anyone else would like to take this on, that'd be very helpful as I'm quite busy with other things at the moment. Daniel
on Tue Aug 19 2008, "Daniel James" <daniel_james-AT-fmail.co.uk> wrote:
2008/8/19 Chris Fairles <chris.fairles@gmail.com>:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Mon Aug 18 2008, "Chris Fairles" <chris.fairles-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Due to pre-processor changes in gcc 4.4.0, MPL fails to compile given -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x on the command line.
The attached patch addresses this issue. This is a works-for-me solution, YMMV.
Can you put this in the Trac please?
Done.
This has come up before. It's actually a problem with the preprocessor library and gcc 4.4's preprocessor. I wrote about it here:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/07/139765.php
I was going to write to the gcc people about this, but never got round to it. If anyone else would like to take this on, that'd be very helpful as I'm quite busy with other things at the moment.
Hi Daniel, Could you put that in the ticket (http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2225) and change the component to preprocessor? Thanks, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On 20/08/2008, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
Could you put that in the ticket (http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2225) and change the component to preprocessor?
I'd already closed that one as a duplicate. So I changed: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2069 Daniel
Daniel James wrote:
This has come up before. It's actually a problem with the preprocessor library and gcc 4.4's preprocessor. I wrote about it here:
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2008/07/139765.php
I was going to write to the gcc people about this, but never got round to it. If anyone else would like to take this on, that'd be very helpful as I'm quite busy with other things at the moment.
What one can do? AFAICT they're correct. Are you thinking to convince them to be intentionally non-conforming? -- Genny
On 21/08/2008, Gennaro Prota <gennaro.prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
What one can do? AFAICT they're correct.
Well, it's hard to say. The standard is not particularly readable and it's hard to believe this was the intent of the writers of the standard.
Are you thinking to convince them to be intentionally non-conforming?
No. I was going to ask to them to introduce this in a less disruptive manner. Daniel
participants (4)
-
Chris Fairles -
Daniel James -
David Abrahams -
Gennaro Prota