Markus Schöpflin wrote:
Or is there a specific reason that you don't want to set this compiler parameter for the regression tests?
No specific reason. You said that you're going to define the macro in a (cxx-specific) configuration file and I just thought that defining it in one place for different compilers is better. Adding a feature to "Jamfile for the test in questions" is also a good solution. Thanks, Boris
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Markus Schöpflin Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 5:00 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [integer] Recent changes introduced failures on many platforms
Gubenko, Boris schrieb:
Markus Schöpflin wrote:
As long as its only needed for running the regression tests, I'll just go ahead and modify the compiler parameters in my local configuration file.
Since setting CONTROL_FULL_COUNTS to zero fixes compilation error on HP-UX/aC++ also, would not it make sense to set the macro in the source -- integer_test.cpp -- for all affected compilers?
As Daryle said that setting this macro might result in missing some important test cases, I opted for increasing the number of pending instantiations in my user configuration.
If there is a supported Boost.Build feature (is there?) to specify a maximum number of pending instantiations, we could even add this to the Jamfile for the test in questions.
Or is there a specific reason that you don't want to set this compiler parameter for the regression tests?
Regards, Markus
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost