[Config] BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE not defined in MACOS for GCC-5
Hi John, I'm having an issue with gcc-5.1 on MacOs. BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE is not defined. I see that there are things like #if __MACH__ && !defined(_MSL_USING_MSL_C) ... # if (__GNUC__ == 4) // Both gcc and intel require these. # define BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE # define BOOST_HAS_NANOSLEEP # endif #else ... // BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE not defined here #endif Wondering why the GCC version must be 4 and why when _MSL_USING_MSL_C is defined these PTHREAD attributes are not defined neither. BTW, when I compile with version 4 everything works correctly. Vicente
On 29/10/2015 09:01, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Hi John,
I'm having an issue with gcc-5.1 on MacOs.
BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE is not defined.
I see that there are things like
#if __MACH__ && !defined(_MSL_USING_MSL_C) ...
# if (__GNUC__ == 4)
// Both gcc and intel require these. # define BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE # define BOOST_HAS_NANOSLEEP
# endif #else ... // BOOST_HAS_PTHREAD_MUTEXATTR_SETTYPE not defined here #endif
Wondering why the GCC version must be 4 and why when _MSL_USING_MSL_C is defined these PTHREAD attributes are not defined neither.
BTW, when I compile with version 4 everything works correctly.
I just don't think this stuff has been updated in a *long* while, plus I've never had access to MacOS so I just rely on what folks tell me, pushed the obvious change to >= rather than ==. BTW these should really be detected by posix_features.hpp, but aren't for some reason. John.
On 29 Oct 2015, at 12:50, John Maddock
wrote: I just don't think this stuff has been updated in a *long* while, plus I've never had access to MacOS so I just rely on what folks tell me, pushed the obvious change to >= rather than ==.
I’m running the (currently only) test-runner for OS X which defaults to clang. Would it help you if I would add a second one using GCC? Thomas
On 29/10/2015 18:47, Thomas Trummer wrote:
On 29 Oct 2015, at 12:50, John Maddock
wrote: I just don't think this stuff has been updated in a *long* while, plus I've never had access to MacOS so I just rely on what folks tell me, pushed the obvious change to >= rather than ==. I’m running the (currently only) test-runner for OS X which defaults to clang. Would it help you if I would add a second one using GCC? That may well be useful yes, particularly as the Apple supplied compiler (gcc-4.2??) is rather ancient compared to anything else we test!
Thanks, John.
participants (3)
-
John Maddock
-
Thomas Trummer
-
Vicente J. Botet Escriba