Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-19 16:58:45

Simon Atanasyan skrev:
> 2006/10/19, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]>:
>> Thanks for information, while we have your attention, can we persuade you to
>> take a look at
>> and scan down for the Sun-5.8 failures?
>> There are a few that are showing internal signals in the compiler, if you
>> can give us an idea of which if any may be fixable, and which we should just
>> shrug and move on over, that would be a big help.
> rational/rational_test
> Fixed in the next patch (06)
> spirit/mix_and_match_trees
> Known bug. Just change "typedef rule<Scanner> rule" to "typedef
> rule<Scanner> rule_"
> parameter/python_test
> I cannot say anything because I don't have installed Python.
> filesystem/mbcopy
> filesystem/wide_test
> mpl/vector_c
> Fixed in the development branch.
> parameter/preprocessor_deduced
> parameter/optional_deduced_sfinae
> Bugs have not beed fixed yet.
> I need a time to investigate is it possible to create workaround for these bugs.

Douglas Gregor, is the contact on the OSL4-V2 sun-5.8 tests. But I fire
off a question here:

Is there a rationale following the decision to mark some of the
libraries in boost as N/A for this compiler?

This seems to apply to ublas, phyton, statechart and expressive.

Does this mean they have never been tested?
Or are they deemed hopeless?
Or simply not run for whatever other reasons?

I would also like to hear Simon Atanasyan's perspective on
compatibility with these libraries. Are there any known issues? As a
user of this compiler and boost for many years now, it is exciting to
notice how quickly Sun recently has been closing in on boost compliance.

Bjorn Roald

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at