On 2005-06-17, Phil Richards <news@derived-software.ltd.uk> wrote: [a patch] Much as I feel as though I'm talking to myself in this thread, that's never stopped me before. The current regression log on boost.sourceforge.net shows: gcc 4.0.0 Pass: 84% (123 warnings) Fail: 16% (213) The patch changes this to the more (but not completely) accurate: gcc 4.0.1-pre20050607 Pass: 97% (220 warnings) Fail: 3% (38) Most of the new warnings are actual error output from failed compilations that compiler_status appears to want to link to. I'll take a look at that next... 8 of the fails are due to the lack of test-type information in the test_log.xml file. If nothing else, it makes gcc look a bit healthier... phil -- change name before "@" to "phil" for email