From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-07 14:09:53
--- In boost_at_y..., "George A. Heintzelman" <georgeh_at_a...> wrote:
>
> Hi boosters,
>
> I'm doing some work trying to get various boost things working for
> SunCC, version 5.3. As I find and hopefully fix things, I'll let
you
> know.
I was able to compile most of the staff using SunCC 5.3. What do you
need?
>
> This message is about the fact that even in the most recent
versions of
> SunCC, BOOST_NO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION is set. There's a comment by
> Jens Maurer that:
>
> // SunPro 5.3 has better support for partial specialization,
> // but breaks when compiling std::less<shared_ptr<T> >
>
> In hopes of getting rid of this limitation, I looked carefully at
that
> particular line, and I found that SunCC compiles it just fine if we
> explicitly qualify the call to std::less as below:
>
> template<typename T>
> struct less< boost::shared_ptr<T> >
> : binary_function<boost::shared_ptr<T>, boost::shared_ptr<T>,
bool>
> {
> bool operator()(const boost::shared_ptr<T>& a,
> const boost::shared_ptr<T>& b) const
> { return std::less<T*>()(a.get(),b.get()); }
> };
>
> So I ask -- is there a reason *not* to qualify it? Is the intention
to
> get argument-dependent-lookup if the user has provided
NS::less<NS::T *>
> ? If so, would
>
> template<typename T>
> struct less< boost::shared_ptr<T> >
> : binary_function<boost::shared_ptr<T>, boost::shared_ptr<T>,
bool>
> {
> bool operator()(const boost::shared_ptr<T>& a,
> const boost::shared_ptr<T>& b) const
> { using std::less; return less<T*>()(a.get(),b.get()); }
> };
>
> (which also works on this compiler) be better? Both fixes also
compile
> the regression for g++ on this platform, which (unfortunately) is
all I
> have access to.
Turn BOOST_NO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION on. It's working in majority
cases.
>
> George Heintzelman
> georgeh_at_a...
Gennadiy.