Peter Dimov wrote: > Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > Well, check out the latest developer report - > > > http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/developer_summary > _page.html! > > Intel-7.1 is misconfigured. ADL is disabled but > BOOST_NO_ARGUMENT_DEPENDENT_LOOKUP is not set. That is why > intrusive_ptr_test and shared_ptr_test fail.
Well, we didn't do anything special to mis-configure it ;), besides choosing MSVC 6 compatibility mode (during the setup, as opposite to MSVC 7.0 one). Any ideas what's the right way to fix that? > > This also demonstrates a different problem, the ADL-related issue is > masked by the fact that shared_ptr_test is marked an expected failure. Yep. This is a shortcoming of the file-based failure report. Collecting Boost.Test detailed test run results will solve that, and it's on our to-do list. > It's not since I fixed it. ;-) > > Beman's approach, where unexpected failures were automatically > determined by comparing the current run with a previous run, seems to > cope better with this scenario, and requires no manual input. Does it? What if the previous run was a total failure - what the next one is going to show? IMO it can work only if you have a trusted snapshot of what is considered a "good" CVS state and you update it "pessimistically" - that is, remove the expected failures that are now passing and leave everything else intact - automatically, of course. And that's exactly what we are going to do. Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost