From: Stefan Slapeta (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-23 04:02:15
Michael Glassford wrote:
>>I believe CW9.3 should be marked as well. It's actually passing for
>>some reason, but I don't understand how it could; Stefan Slapeta is
>>looking into it. I think it would be best to mark it as an expected
>>failure so that the results show that its passing the tests is
>>unexpected, at least until we figure out that why.
Bad news: also the results for Intel are incorrect, the static cleanup
doesn't work for Intel Compiler, either:
Running 1 test case...
tss_instances = 0; tss_total = 5
tss_instances = 5; tss_total = 5
../libs/thread/test/test_tss.cpp(152): error in "test_tss": test
tss_instances == 0 failed [5 != 0]
*** 1 failure detected in test suite "Boost.Threads: tss test suite"
EXIT STATUS: 0
I'll markup this as expected failure and submit a feature request for
the Intel Compiler.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk