At 05:26 PM 2/18/2003, Bo Persson wrote:
>A lot of the failures seems to be a "warning" that 7.1 actually does the
>right thing. A bit unfair to count this as a failure!
Warnings aren't counted as failures. A test compile, link, or run has to
actually report failure (via non-zero return code).
"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 02:21 PM 2/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>
> >Beman Dawes wrote:
> >> Because of interest in how well Boost 1.30.0 and VC++ 7.1 will work
> >> together, I've posted regression tests.
> >>
> >
At 02:35 PM 2/18/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
>> Because of interest in how well Boost 1.30.0 and VC++ 7.1 will work
>> together, I've posted regression tests.
>>
>> See http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/
>
>>From the department of nitpickers ;¬ )
>
>The links to the fail messages ref
Beman Dawes wrote:
> Because of interest in how well Boost 1.30.0 and VC++ 7.1 will work
> together, I've posted regression tests.
>
> See http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/
>From the department of nitpickers ;¬ )
The links to the fail messages refer to
.../cs-win32-links.htm#...
