From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-24 12:39:03
Peter Dimov schrieb:
> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>
>> But I still get:
>>
>> cxx: Error: ../../../boost/interprocess/smart_ptr/intrusive_ptr.hpp,
>> line 77: identifier "intrusive_ptr_add_ref" is undefined
>> (undeclared) detected during instantiation of
>> "boost::interprocess::intrusive_ptr<T,
>> VoidPointer>::intrusive_ptr(const
>> boost::interprocess::intrusive_ptr<T,
>> VoidPointer>::pointer &, bool) [with
>> T=n_transitive::X, VoidPointer=VP]" at line 468
>> of "intrusive_ptr_test.cpp" intrusive_ptr_add_ref(p);
>> --------^
>
> This is a point of instantiation error. It's caused by intrusive_ptr_add_ref
> not being defined in one of the associated namespaces of n_transitive::X.
> Looking at the test, it looks like namespace N, the home of N::base, is the
> appropriate place for standard-conforming compilers.
>
> In
>
> http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/trunk/libs/smart_ptr/test/intrusive_ptr_test.cpp
>
> I've defined intrusive_ptr_* as inline friends of base, but an out of class
> definition in N will also work.
Thank you very much for your help, tomorrow I'll try to move those two
functions to N to see if it works then.
But I still think that this kind of implicit interfacing with client
code should be avoided. Or is this considered OK by others?
Markus