| Re: [eigen] std::vector specialization |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] std::vector specialization
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:42:59 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0FM52OowkTu6ZpyMRiFL7m0C1lM5imb5VVb34RiZ3kQ=; b=Yvmy/IxJ/S1XMDHEWv81PFRI9jUofVJGMn/bcoXNamjqheJdKKUZOkCnHj/XhJWOZg wEWU7n/5O8uOvPYax92GgzxLZGl9K9Kv7hDXtkKlag4M7emGfyxF78NXdYosY63T6TNU uwLEEonLVZTZ42Vt1eMUaI7CQsMQebb5sXBME=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=TerE8JFFA6tMV6vkiO8tL6ePgmytNsfx95ag4sxP+cWE6xPAd04DGoWKrdWKmVeaXu QvxGbbFYnxUje2lJeSvp6eVlBE5/c0HbBIqBO/ROFvUAkzNCL7ha4hAtABoHF3TBsdlF kwJurAMRfpsqhqta4J2SdOFXMkskPCTmvf0pk=
Hiho,
before I would push something like this, I am wondering whether
somebody could be so kind to test with GCC < 4.4.1 maybe, 3.3. I am
just asking since this is the minimal version (afaik) we want to
guarantee support for.
- Hauke
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2010/1/26 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Capricelli
>> <orzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I just have two thoughts about this (but please note that I dont know much about this topic)
>>>
>>> 1) I'm surprised that you dont have more problems with variadic macros, i remember it was a porting nightmare.
>>> 2) there's no unit test... why ? (is it impossible?). You said you've tested this with three compilers... the code you've used for this is probably easy to turn into unit tests, no ?
>>
>> I modified the existing test\stdvector.cpp - it's now attached. Just
>> forgot to add it to the patch. Of course this is just a temporary unit
>> test since it does not test the usage of the manual allocator
>> definition anymore. The attached version contains the define as well
>> as the unit test.
>
> Yes, so you probably need to add the new unit test as a separate test
> alongside the existing one.
>
> Benoit
>
>
>