[1.47.0] Merge request for quickbook+random
Hello, Please can I merge this change: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72799/ There's a constexpr method in that file which isn't just a return statement, which was causing random (and libraries which depend on it) to fail on gcc 4.6.0 in C++0x mode. So the change just disables use of constexpr. A proper fix is pretty simple so I'll do that for the next release if necessary. Also this small documentation fix: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72823/ thanks, Daniel
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Please can I merge this change:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72799/
There's a constexpr method in that file which isn't just a return statement, which was causing random (and libraries which depend on it) to fail on gcc 4.6.0 in C++0x mode. So the change just disables use of constexpr. A proper fix is pretty simple so I'll do that for the next release if necessary.
Also this small documentation fix:
Please go ahead on both! Thanks, --Beman
On 07/02/2011 06:08 PM, Daniel James wrote:
Hello,
Please can I merge this change:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72799/
There's a constexpr method in that file which isn't just a return statement, which was causing random (and libraries which depend on it) to fail on gcc 4.6.0 in C++0x mode. So the change just disables use of constexpr. A proper fix is pretty simple so I'll do that for the next release if necessary.
Isn't it better to simply remove the temporary variable to make it a valid constexpr?
On 3 July 2011 02:17, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
On 07/02/2011 06:08 PM, Daniel James wrote:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72799/
There's a constexpr method in that file which isn't just a return statement, which was causing random (and libraries which depend on it) to fail on gcc 4.6.0 in C++0x mode. So the change just disables use of constexpr. A proper fix is pretty simple so I'll do that for the next release if necessary.
Isn't it better to simply remove the temporary variable to make it a valid constexpr?
At this stage in the release process, I'd prefer to use the simplest, least disruptive change. Disabling the user of constexpr only affects gcc in C++0x mode (the preprocessed code is identical elsewhere), and causes it to use an implementation that's known to work. It's also a much easier change to review.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 July 2011 02:17, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
On 07/02/2011 06:08 PM, Daniel James wrote:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/72799/
There's a constexpr method in that file which isn't just a return statement, which was causing random (and libraries which depend on it) to fail on gcc 4.6.0 in C++0x mode. So the change just disables use of constexpr. A proper fix is pretty simple so I'll do that for the next release if necessary.
Isn't it better to simply remove the temporary variable to make it a valid constexpr?
At this stage in the release process, I'd prefer to use the simplest, least disruptive change. Disabling the user of constexpr only affects gcc in C++0x mode (the preprocessed code is identical elsewhere), and causes it to use an implementation that's known to work. It's also a much easier change to review.
I agree, but you might want to go ahead with the permanent fix in trunk so that it doesn't get forgotten for 1.48.0. And make yourself a note to merge to release once branches/release opens up for 1.48:-) --Beman
participants (3)
-
Beman Dawes -
Daniel James -
Mathias Gaunard