Re: [boost] [integer] Recent changes introduced failures on many platforms

From: Gubenko, Boris (boris.gubenko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-29 20:52:51

Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> Or is there a specific reason that you don't want to set this compiler
> parameter for the regression tests?

No specific reason. You said that you're going to define the macro in a (cxx-specific) configuration file and I just thought that defining it in one place for different compilers is better. Adding a feature to "Jamfile for the test in questions" is also a good solution.

Thanks,
  Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Markus Schöpflin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:00 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [integer] Recent changes introduced
> failures on many platforms
>
> Gubenko, Boris schrieb:
> > Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> >> As long as its only needed for running the regression tests, I'll
> >> just go ahead and modify the compiler parameters in my local
> >> configuration file.
> >
> > Since setting CONTROL_FULL_COUNTS to zero fixes compilation error on
> > HP-UX/aC++ also, would not it make sense to set the macro in the
> > source -- integer_test.cpp -- for all affected compilers?
>
> As Daryle said that setting this macro might result in missing some
> important test cases, I opted for increasing the number of pending
> instantiations in my user configuration.
>
> If there is a supported Boost.Build feature (is there?) to specify a
> maximum number of pending instantiations, we could even add
> this to the
> Jamfile for the test in questions.
>
> Or is there a specific reason that you don't want to set this compiler
> parameter for the regression tests?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>