Boost Testing :
From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro.prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-02 15:32:43
K. Noel Belcourt wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> what's the difference between Sandia-darwin-intel-9.1 and
> This is the intel-9.1 compiler on x86 hardware.
>> Sandia-darwin-intel at
> This is Apple's gcc-4.0.1 compiler (Boost build refers to this as the
> darwin toolset, or, as it appears in the results page, the darwin-4.0.1
Ah! :-) Thanks. Perhaps the top row names (or the toolset names)
should be a tad standardized? I couldn't gather that it was gcc.
>> Could the exact version of the Intel compiler (with build number) be
>> provided for the latter?
> It's Apple's gcc compiler on x86 hardware, running under Tiger.
>> BTW, almost all Intel versions are failing to recognize a constant
>> expression as such (sigh). To avoid messing up the SVN history, it
>> would be great if someone could help with a little local test. I'd
>> send the patch here in that case.
> What can I do to help?
Could you please apply the attached patch to your trunk working copy
and see if dyn_bitset_unit_tests3 compiles successfully? This is the
classical "rephrase and move things around until the compiler is
happy" fix, so I'd prefer not mess up with SVN, unless unavoidable.
Thanks a lot!
--- dynamic_bitset.hpp (revision 48496)
+++ dynamic_bitset.hpp (working copy)
@@ -1001,7 +1001,10 @@
typename dynamic_bitset<Block, Allocator>::size_type
dynamic_bitset<Block, Allocator>::count() const
- using namespace detail::dynamic_bitset_impl;
+ using detail::dynamic_bitset_impl::access_by_bytes;
+ using detail::dynamic_bitset_impl::access_by_blocks;
+ using detail::dynamic_bitset_impl::table_width;
+ using detail::dynamic_bitset_impl::value_to_type;
// NOTE: I'm explicitly qualifying "bits_per_block" to workaround
// regressions of gcc 3.4.x