[C++-sig] "bpl_utils" reorganized

[Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve]

For David Abrahams: please see question at end. Thanks.

--- Philip Austin <paustin at eos.ubc.ca> wrote:
> FYI the array_family tests run fine using: gcc version 3.0.4 (Mandrake
> Linux 8.2 3.0.4-2mdk) (save for multiple warnings in tst_af_1 like:
> /nfs/roc/home/phil/scitbx/include/scitbx/array_family/small_plain.h:67:
> warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions

I am aware of this, and a while ago I asked in a gcc forum if it is
possible to disable this warning specifically. Eventually I fell back
to using -w for all my gcc compilation.
Note that I am also using VC7, Metrowerks 7 & 8, and various
EDG front-ends. gcc is the only compiler that warns about the
comparison.

> (plus the spelling typo:
> array_excercise<ArrayType>)

Thanks for spotting this! It is fixed in cvs.

> and a warning in tst_af_4:
> 
> tst_af_4.cpp:223: warning: passing `const double' for argument 1 of `void 
>    <unnamed>::a_value<ValueType>::m_init(const ValueType&) [with ValueType = 
>    int]'

Hm. This doesn't show up when using -w. Again, none of the other
compilers complains. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to
massage the regression test to make gcc happy.

> But the tests fail to compile with gcc version 3.2. Typical 
> errors for tst_af_1 are:

I just bumped up the gcc version number in an #ifdef clause. On my
platform (RH 7.3) gcc 3.2 with the -w option compiles the entire scitbx
(and -lbpl) without a glitch.
The long-term plan is to use the alignment calculator that comes with
boost (wasn't there when I started the array_family).
David A.: is the boost alignment calculator connected
to the meta-programming library? If not, is it "stable?"

Ralf


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com