Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#6406 closed Bugs (fixed)
Use attribute names with underscores for GCC
| Reported by: | Owned by: | Eric Niebler | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milestone: | Boost 1.51.0 | Component: | xpressive |
| Version: | Boost 1.50.0 | Severity: | Problem |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
... which should prevent accidental interactions between user-defined macros and boost internals.
Attachments (1)
Change History (10)
by , 11 years ago
| Attachment: | boost-xpressive.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
| Component: | None → xpressive |
|---|---|
| Owner: | set to |
comment:2 by , 11 years ago
comment:3 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
Resolving as invalid for now. If you can show that this has been supported syntax for a long time, feel free to reopen.
comment:4 by , 11 years ago
I updated the ticket #6416 with some evidence that this is a long-supported feature.
comment:5 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
comment:6 by , 11 years ago
The double underscore feature is described here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html and it has worked "forever" (I tried GCC 3.3, but reportedly it's been supported all the way back to GCC 2.95.7).
comment:7 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
comment:8 by , 10 years ago
| Milestone: | To Be Determined → Boost 1.51.0 |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | fixed |
| Status: | closed → reopened |
| Version: | Boost 1.48.0 → Boost 1.50.0 |
The bug has been fixed on trunk (http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/boost/xpressive/detail/core/adaptor.hpp), but not on the release branch (http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/release/boost/xpressive/detail/core/adaptor.hpp)...
Could you integrate the fix in the release branch as well?
comment:9 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Oops. Merged to release in [79614]. Thanks for spotting that.
Can you point to official gcc documentation that show that this is a supported and equivalent syntax? All I see is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html, which seems to indicate that the original code is the correct form. And if the form you suggested is allowed, then is it only a recent addition?