* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-06 20:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-06 20:24 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-06 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tromey at redhat dot com
OtherBugsDependingO| |36320
nThis| |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-06-06 20:03:39
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-06 20:04 ` [Bug preprocessor/36453] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-06 20:24 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-10 22:15 ` mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-06 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-06 20:23 -------
By my reading of the standard, issuing an error here is correct.
The restrictions on #elif are only lifted if it is in a skipped group.
But, in this case, it is not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-06 20:04 ` [Bug preprocessor/36453] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-06-06 20:24 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-06-10 22:15 ` mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-06 3:26 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-06-10 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 22:14 -------
so the code should be changed to
#elif defined(BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH) && BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH() == 1
?
it is confusing that #elif behaves more like "#if" and not like "#else\n#if"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-10 22:15 ` mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-06 3:26 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-07 9:26 ` mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-06 3:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 03:25 -------
Sorry, I somehow missed the followup comment.
>> #elif defined(BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH) && BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH() == 1
The expression has to be valid after preprocessing.
So, if BOOST_PP_ITERATION_DEPTH is not defined, this will yield an error.
>> it is confusing that #elif behaves more like "#if" and not like "#else\n#if"
I agree, but by my reading this is what the standard actually says.
I am open to arguments contrariwise, or to rulings from gcc developers more
expert at standardese than I.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-06 3:26 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-07 9:26 ` mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-14 8:09 ` schwab at suse dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-07 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-07 09:25 -------
well, lets keep it at that for now
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-07 9:26 ` mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-14 8:09 ` schwab at suse dot de
2008-10-09 14:47 ` schwab at suse dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: schwab at suse dot de @ 2008-09-14 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-09-14 08:08 -------
*** Bug 37518 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rwgk at yahoo dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-14 8:09 ` schwab at suse dot de
@ 2008-10-09 14:47 ` schwab at suse dot de
2008-10-09 20:40 ` sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: schwab at suse dot de @ 2008-10-09 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-10-09 14:46 -------
*** Bug 37781 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
schwab at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jarda at grisoft dot cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-09 14:47 ` schwab at suse dot de
@ 2008-10-09 20:40 ` sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-05 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: sam at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-09 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from sam at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-09 20:39 -------
Note that this has been fixed in Boost SVN repository recently
(http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2069).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-10-09 20:40 ` sam at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-05 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-06 18:03 ` knocte at gmail dot com
2010-05-07 8:40 ` rguenther at suse dot de
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-05 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-05 12:20 -------
*** Bug 38161 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |h dot b dot furuseth at usit
| |dot uio dot no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-05 12:30 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-06 18:03 ` knocte at gmail dot com
2010-05-07 8:40 ` rguenther at suse dot de
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: knocte at gmail dot com @ 2010-05-06 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from knocte at gmail dot com 2010-05-06 18:02 -------
Hello.
I'm in a position in which I cannot upgrade my Boost libraries right now.
So, is there a way that I can tell gcc to ignore this warning for now?
Thanks in advance.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [Bug preprocessor/36453] PR36320 breaks boost
2008-06-06 17:54 [Bug preprocessor/36453] New: PR36320 breaks boost mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-06 18:03 ` knocte at gmail dot com
@ 2010-05-07 8:40 ` rguenther at suse dot de
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2010-05-07 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-05-07 08:39 -------
Subject: Re: PR36320 breaks boost
On Thu, 6 May 2010, knocte at gmail dot com wrote:
> ------- Comment #9 from knocte at gmail dot com 2010-05-06 18:02 -------
> Hello.
>
> I'm in a position in which I cannot upgrade my Boost libraries right now.
>
> So, is there a way that I can tell gcc to ignore this warning for now?
No.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36453
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread