From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-20 06:46:15
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:22:01 +0100, John Maddock wrote
> > I've put them here: http://genericprogramming.com/boost
> > Failures:
> > - ublas (2)
> > - test (_many_)!!
> > - thread/test_read_write_mutex like on other compilers
> > - random(2)
> > - date_time/testmicrosec_time_clock -> should be expected???
This one is expected. It only passed in 1.32 because we were incorrectly
reporting the result as passing.
> > Furthermore some in range and serialization.
> That's not too good, the last release had a 100% pass rate for Intel,
> this one really should as well unless there are some really good reasons...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk