Re: [boost] Re: [Ann] Proposed Boost.TR1 library:firstcompleteversionnow available.

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-21 11:19:22

>      Well, it looks like testing for the signature (using your code or
> presumably something from the upcoming for review function type library)
> will not preclude testing for actual accuracy... Though one can wonder
> at this stage if we are still dealing with QOI or a broken library.

Looks like it might be a broken implementation: looking at the output from 
config_info at 
http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost-regression/cvs-head/developer/output/CalebEpstein-bin-boost-status-config_info-test-sunpro-5_3-debug.html 
it seems that _RWSTD_NO_OVERLOAD_C_POW is defined, and the Rogue Waves 
headers say:

/* If your 'C' library does not provide overloads for the pow function
* (i.e. pow(float,float), and pow(long double, long double) if appropriate),
* then uncommment the following.
*/
/* #define _RWSTD_NO_OVERLOAD_C_POW 1 */

So I guess at least one API is broken.

John.