From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-26 11:41:16
Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> Björn Karlsson wrote:
>
[snip]
>> So, should we augment these ~800 BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANTs? If that's
>> what we decide to do, I'd like to wait until 1_29_0 is shipping,
>> and everything has been merged back to the trunk. And there'll be a
>> new macro (BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT_DEFINITION, or similar) to
>> streamline usage.
>
> I just discovered something totally new to me. I posted in another
> message that (quoting myself):
>
>>The basic problem is, IBM's vacpp 5 can't do this:
>>
>>template <bool b> struct foo
>>{
>> static const bool v = b;
>>};
>>
>>template <bool b> struct bar
>>{
>> static const bool v1 = b;
>> static const bool v2 = foo<v1>::v;
>>};
>>
>>It works if you replace foo<v1>::v with foo<b>::v.
>
>
> Now I just discovered another workaround for this. It also works
> if you use enum { v1 = b } and enum { v2 = foo<v1>::v }.
>
> Which of course speaks in favour of enabling the workaround
> for this compiler despite it breaking other things.
>
> I'm just running regression tests against RC 1.29.0 to see how
> bad it really is.
>
Ok, did a test run and it isn't as bad as I feared. Mostly due to the
fact that BOOST_NO_INTEGRAL_INT64_T is defined for this configuration.
Well, maybe it's best just to change the macro back. I'll contact John
Maddock about it.
Thanks, Markus