From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-06 18:00:13
Daryle Walker wrote:
>>layout_test: cw-8_3 cw-9_4 gcc-2.95.3-linux gcc-2.95.3-stlport-4.6.2-linux
>>gcc-3.2.3-linux gcc-3.3.6-linux gcc-3.3.6-linux gcc-3.4.4-linux
>>gcc-3.4.4-linux gcc-3_3-darwin gcc-4.0.1-linux gcc-4.0.2-linux
>>gcc-4_0-darwin intel-8.1-linux intel-9.0-linux intel-win32-8_1 mingw-3_4_2
>>vc-7_0 vc-7_1 vc-8_0
> This could be another case to watch out for: when a library fails on every
> compiler (or a least a lot of them). Here it would be the library that's
> possibly broken.
Isn't that exactly what these tests are supposed to measure ? Or do you mean
that in case *all* tests fail the report could just mention a single failure,
on a different granularity scale ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk