Subject: Re: [boost] [integer][math]Heads up on revised gcd/lcm code
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-29 18:57:52
On 4/29/2017 1:49 PM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
>
>> Sorry about the multiple posts. I have been having some trouble with
>> Thunderbird. I think it is fixed now.
>>
>
> No problem, for some reason I lost all boost messages for a couple of
> days....
Something apparently happened to everybody, where the mailing lists
stopped working along with the GMane reflection. Everything seems to be
back now.
> but I see from the archives you replied as below:
>
> >With 12.3 I see:
>
> >sun.compile.c++
> >/home/fceldiener/build/boost/bin.v2/libs/integer/test/fail_uint_65.test/sun-12.3stlport/debug/address-model-32/fail_uint_65.o
>
> >I can not see why it fails to compile and no reason seems to be given.
>
> It's a compile-fail test, which compiles when it should not - as I
> understand it, it tries to create a 65-bit integer which should of
> course fail.
> I assume it's a compiler bug, but either way, nothing has changed in
> that code for years.
>
> >With 12.2 I still see:
>
> >sun.compile.c++
> >/home/fceldiener/build/boost/bin.v2/libs/integer/test/integer_traits_test.test/sun-12.2stlport/debug/address-model-32/integer_traits_test.o
> >"../../../boost/cstdint.hpp", line 381: Error: uintptr_t is not defined.
> >1 Error(s) detected.
>
> That's weird, it should have been fixed in
> https://github.com/boostorg/config/commit/19766b0a0e3d8c92e4c0d058cc47190ce7ea1528
> - solaris.hpp unconditionally defines BOOST_HAS_STDINT_H so that
> pp-branch should only be taken when INTPTR_MAX is defined and ::intptr
> actually exists. Or are you on red-hat?
I am on Linux ( Fedora 25 ), not Solaris. I will look at it and see what
I can figure out.
> In which case are you able to
> figure out why that pp-branch is taken?
>
> Thanks!
>
> John.