From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-20 11:39:44
Michael Glassford wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>>> I've put them here: http://genericprogramming.com/boost
>>> - ublas (2)
>>> - test (_many_)!!
>>> - thread/test_read_write_mutex like on other compilers
>>> - random(2)
>>> - date_time/testmicrosec_time_clock -> should be expected???
>>> Furthermore some in range and serialization.
>> That's not too good, the last release had a 100% pass rate for Intel,
>> one really should as well unless there are some really good reasons...
> The read_write_mutex is new, so it's not a true regression from the
> previous 100% pass rate. I'm currently working on the scheduling
> algorithm to make it pass its unit tests and hopefully deal with
> reported deadlocking issues.
Please, fix that quickly. Someone fixed the cause of the compile errors
for the more conforming compilers. So, now, I can expect the tests to
deadlock for every compiler. This is a showstopper for testing, IMHO.
I'm considering to remove the test from the Jamfile until the problem
has been fixed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk