From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-19 02:45:47
Daniel James wrote:
> It's perfectly okay for the compiler to fail the test. I've been meaning
> to change the test to reflect this, but haven't got around to it (I've
> been working on fixing the genuine failures).
> If you look through the hash tests you'll find lots of tests like this,
> it's an easy way to test that the hash function is taking into account
> all the data involved. To tell if they are really a failure or not
> requires some interpretation. If you look at the failures on gcc on
> SunOS, they indicate a real problem.
I have to admit, following Victor's argumentation, I don't see the
fundamental difference between the failures on SunOS and on Tru64.
> The tests don't supply a general purpose hash testing suite, but one
> that tests whether the hash functions are doing what I expect.
I don't get you there. The tests are supposed to tell whether the hash
library works ok or not on some particular compiler/platform. If some of
the tests fail, I have to assume (from a user's point of view) that the
library will not work reliably for me. (Especially as these are not
compilation failures but runtime failures.)
Maybe you could change the tests to just print the hash values on stdout?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk