kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jean-pierre charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 16/05/2012 19:33, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
> On 05/16/2012 06:28 AM, jp.charras wrote:
> > Le 16/05/2012 10:24, Lorenzo Marcantonio a écrit :
> > > Merged from the tip. Problem of the day :P
> > >
> > > You declared
> > >
> > > typedef boost::ptr_vector<   LIB_ITEM>   LIB_ITEMS;
> > >
> > > ... which is an IMHO more than reasonable decision.
> > >
> > > drawings in LIB_COMPONENT is a LIB_ITEMS.
> > >
> > > Then in (for example) GetBoundingBox I have an issue on the
> > >
> > > BOOST_FOREACH( const LIB_ITEM&   item, drawings )
> > An easy fix is to replace
> >       BOOST_FOREACH( const LIB_ITEM&   item, drawings )
> >       {
> > by
> >       for( unsigned ii = 0; ii<  drawings.size(); ii++  )
> >       {
> >           const LIB_ITEM&  item = drawings[ii];
> > in const functions.
> >
> > For obscure reasons, in BOOST 1.49
> >       BOOST_FOREACH( const LIB_ITEM&   item, drawings )
> > has problems inside a const function,
> > and works fine when the function is not declared as const.
> >
> > (at least for me with gcc 4.6.2)
>
> Jean-Pierre,
>
> Was commit 3563 the last of the new compile problems with 4.6.2?
>
> I was in the process of installing gcc 4.6.2 in order to fix my breakage, when I saw your
> commit.
>
> (If all fixed, I can probably postpone that gcc install until I upgrade to newer Ubuntu in
> the next 1 or 2 weeks.  4.6.2 seems to be commonly used now, and my Ubuntu Lucid system is
> showing its whiskers.  Probably most of the bleeding on the new Ubuntu LTS is over now,
> thinking safe to upgrade.)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dick

This is the last commit (and, in fact the only one) about issues with gcc 4.6.2.
Because I tested some time ago boost 1.49 (I am using in in a special testing branch since it is out),
I was already aware of this issue.

This is the only one I found.

Currently I am using gcc 4.6.2 with mingw, and gcc 4.4 under Linux Ubuntu 10.10
Is is the first issue I had since I am using gcc 4.6.2. (end of year 2011)



> P.S.
>
> The BOOST_FOREACH black box works well until it doesn't work, then you wish the box was
> transparent.  This is why I never used it.  Besides, no way they can write those three
> statements better than I can anyway.

I am also not fond of BOOST_FOREACH: it does not add clarity or efficiency in code.
I do not use it in my code.

--
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS