From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 20:20:43
Timo Geusch wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't so it's not quite that easy a fix. Several
> tests don't compile and a couple of those that do, fail.
> I've put up the output of a test run at
> Please note that these currently are just the build failures as I
> thought that it may be better to fix those first and then address the
> test failures seperately.
Actually I'm less worried about those that don't compile, than those that
compile and do the wrong thing: for example is_empty<function-type>::value
being *true*, that could be really really bad, and I'm frankly at a complete
loss to understand how that could possibly happen. Other failures like the
is_abstract ones are expected if BOOST_NO_IS_ABSTRACT is set: which it is
for compiler versions <= 0x580, so it looks like maybe the compiler version
hasn't been updated from previous releases? The remaining failures are all
function type related: looks like sunpro doesn't like partial
specialisations on pointers to functions, or maybe something has gone wrong
before the metacode gets that far it's impossible to say.
Anyway I'm going to contact Simon Atanasyan direct and see if he has any
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk