Peter Dimov wrote: > > 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...)
Unfortunately the number of tested configurations is somewhat bound by the length of the compilation cycle, but as far as the naming goes, we totally agree. > > 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. Do you mean that there are no expected failures for the smart_ptr library (which we'll take care of soon), or something else? 'Cause I, for instance, definitely would like to see a CVS health report in terms of regressions rather than absolute failures. Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
