Farid Zaripov wrote:
Is there some reason that you didn't just fix the regression shown in
STDCXX-1009?
Firstly, I found the regression some time later that I commited changes in
xfail.txt.
Perhaps we need to define the process for when a failure should
go in xfail.txt? I'd be inclined to mark a failure expected on
a given branch when it can't be fixed on that branch given the
release criteria (e.g., because it's incompatible). Would that
work for everyone?
Martin
Secondly, I want fix the regression and at the same time leave STDCXX-968
fixed :)
Can you, please, verify that replacing 1 with 1L don't issues any warnings on
32-bit and 64-bit aCC?
Farid.
