David Abrahams writes:

Its performance with our tests is not too impressive. Only 4 libraries pass.

Well: 1) At this point the results are lacking _any_ mark up whatsoever, which makes the summary report look more pessimistic when it actually is. Click through individual library results, and you'll see it. 2) A lot of the failures are due to a failure to build Boost.Test. Until this fixed, the results will look more pessimistic than they actually are. 3) When you first throw your code against a new compiler, there is always a chance of coming across a language corner that the standard and the compiler disagree about (unless the compiler is 100% standard compliant, which, as we all know, not a single one is), and if that piece of code happens to be in a widely reusable library, then again, this is going to shadow the actual compiler standing. I suspect we have a few such cases here. IOW, give things some time to sort themselves out.

Is it really worth spending resources on testing this compiler?

Despite what your initial impression might be, it's a good compiler, and in past Walter has been quite responsive to fixing Boost-related problems. Give it a chance. People are using it, and the C++ community needs more, not less choice. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering