From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-01 19:56:25
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Apr 01 2007, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Martin Wille wrote:
>>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>>> python_test: gcc-4.0.3_linux gcc-4.1.0_linux gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc gcc-cygwin-3.4.4
>>> These are already outdated results for gcc-4.0.3_linux and
>>> gcc-4.1.0_linux. The tests actually pass. The next table will reflect
>>> that state.
>> What about 'gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc' ? That seems to be a total failure. (The failure is at
>> least partially in the regression harness; the table at
>> doesn't even mention it. :-(
> Huh? I see it there. Looks all green to me. What am I missing?
The test run from 2007-03-31 for gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc is indeed all green, even though
the test report from the same date reports lots of failures. This is apparently caused
by the report generator and the test runner running on different dates, so they are
(It's the report from 2007-04-01 that contains the test runs from 2007-03-31.)
Sorry for the noise.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk