Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > Peter Dimov wrote: >> >> Note also that Beman's intel-win32 toolset passed shared_ptr_test but >> your intel-win32 toolset did not, and I can't distinguish the two in >> expected_results.xml. > > We just need to agree on the configuration, here. Currently, we run > Intel 7.1 in MSVC 6.0 compatibility mode, and Beman probably has his > configured for 7.0. I am not sure which configuration is more common > in the real world - assuming that this is the criterion we want to > stick to.
Testing on different Intel configurations is a good thing; it has uncovered a problem in shared_ptr_test. It's just different configurations need to have different (non-generic) toolset names (intel-7.1-vc6, intel-7.1-vc7, intel-7.1-vc6-stlport...) Also, please note that I don't mind the _developer summary_ being "aggressive" in its pass/fail reports. There are no "expected failures" there as far as I'm concerned. Every failure needs to be reported in red, with pass->fail transitions emphasized. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
