From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-20 10:30:52
Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 10 days ago, I wrote
>> Currently, these regressions on Linux exist (see
>> http://tinyurl.com/k36t ):
>> - crc_test regresses for gcc-3.1 and gcc-3.2.3
>> - graph regresses for gcc-2.95.3
>> - slice, iterators, compare, index_bases, stl_interaction,
>> constructors, assign, concept_checks, reshape, access,
>> storage order regress for gcc-2.95.3-stlport-4.5.3
>> - random_test and random_demo regress for gcc-2.95.3
>> Some tests fail for all or most of the compilers:
>> - sum_avg_portable fails for all compilers
>> - octonion_test and quaternion_test fail for all compilers.
>> - tricky_is_enum_test fails for all compilers
>> - errors_handling_test fails for all compilers
> No changes and no comments from the respective maintainers since then,
> except for Boost.Function (which uses a slightly modified test now).
Well, I don't know what broke tricky_is_enum_test, but it was working
on several compilers for me when I checked it in... and your link
seems to show it working on intel-7.1.
For me it passes vc7, vc7.1, cwpro8, intel5, intel6, intel7, intel8,
and borland. I don't think it ever passed on GCC.
> Is this kind of report welcome on this list? Or would the
> respective maintainers prefer to be contacted off-list?
On list is fine, but it usually helps to write separate messages for
separate libraries, with subject lines including the lib name. I
know, it's a pain...
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk