From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-17 10:59:35
On 2005-06-17, Phil Richards <news_at_[hidden]> wrote:
Much as I feel as though I'm talking to myself in this thread,
that's never stopped me before.
The current regression log on boost.sourceforge.net shows:
Pass: 84% (123 warnings)
Fail: 16% (213)
The patch changes this to the more (but not completely) accurate:
Pass: 97% (220 warnings)
Fail: 3% (38)
Most of the new warnings are actual error output from failed
compilations that compiler_status appears to want to link to.
I'll take a look at that next...
8 of the fails are due to the lack of test-type information in
the test_log.xml file.
If nothing else, it makes gcc look a bit healthier...
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk