The merge tests into containers with unique keys are failing on some
platforms. My guess is that because of differences between ordering of
nodes with equivalent keys that different nodes are being 'merged' in
the unordered containers and the tracker containers. So when creating
the fake merge, use the unordered container as a reference. This is a
little less pure, but should be a good enough test.
The standard specifies that all of these "shall not exit via an
exception". The containers have been exception safe when these throw,
but the 'noexcept' attribute on 'get_allocator' will terminate if an
exception is thrown in the copy constructor.
The standard doesn't specify a default constructor, so that is allowed
to throw an exception (not just pedantry, this makes sense if an
allocator has shared data that's allocated in the initial constructor).
Adjusts to use less arguments on Visual C++ 11, which will hopefully fix
it on that compiler. Also changed to be a little less preprocessor
heavy. I'm not sure about the __SUNPRO_CC support, hopefully recent
versions of that compiler will have better support, and can use the
normal implementation. Will check that later.
Was getting a weird test failure for Visual C++ 11,
BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_TUPLE is defined, so the code doesn't support
std::tuple, but BOOST_UNORDERED_HAVE_PIECEWISE_CONSTRUCT was also
true, and so there are functions for constructing using
std::piecewise_construct/std::tuple, which don't work.
So, I'm assuming that if BOOST_UNORDERED_HAVE_PIECEWISE_CONSTRUCT is true,
then there must be a std::tuple. I guess it doesn't have full C++11 support,
which is why BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_TUPLE is defined, but it appears to be
good enough for us. If not, this will break things.
This appears to be an unavoidable problem with GCC's tuple
implementation. For example:
http://stackoverflow.com/q/23374953/2434
Appears to be okay in later versions of GCC though.
There's a problem with it causing an ambiguous overload. I don't think
there's anything we can do to fix that, so just don't test it.
There's another bug where a std::pair doesn't get correctly constructed
from an rvalue when using Clang 3.1 in C++11 mode. But I can't see any
way to easily fix that, and it's a pretty old compiler now.
