From: Michael Stevens (Michael.Stevens_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-30 14:14:34
> Aleksey Gurtovoy writes:
> > Given that the code compiles with the latests versions of the
> > compiler, the following (from http://tinyurl.com/58lll) is most likely
> > to be a compiler bug, but since the test used to pass some time ago, I
> > was wondering if anyone is interested in making it work again or simply
> > commenting on it before I mark it green:
> [snip errors]
> OK, seems like nobody is interested in these, marked up as expected.
I took a quick look. It seems like gcc-2.95 has namespace problems when
Since Random never worked on systems without min/max in std I have simplified
and use std::min/max instead. This fixes gcc-2.95 and should not regress on
any of the good compilers.
If this looks good in the tests tomorrow I will remove the failure markup.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk