[test] Another Boost.Test failure.
There are more Boost.Test failures coming through caused by the recent changes - this time Intel-10 on Win64 is failing most of the math lib tests with: http://tinyurl.com/2quy5h John.
John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
There are more Boost.Test failures coming through caused by the recent changes - this time Intel-10 on Win64 is failing most of the math lib tests with: http://tinyurl.com/2quy5h
Do you have an access to this hardware+software? Can you try to propose workaround? Or at least can you tell me what are compile time flags to ifdef it ? Genandiy
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
There are more Boost.Test failures coming through caused by the recent changes - this time Intel-10 on Win64 is failing most of the math lib tests with: http://tinyurl.com/2quy5h
Do you have an access to this hardware+software?
Can you try to propose workaround?
Or at least can you tell me what are compile time flags to ifdef it ?
Do you think the free prototype compiler on http://whatif.intel.com/ might be able to build the code and produce the same problem? - Michael Marcin
Michael Marcin wrote:
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
There are more Boost.Test failures coming through caused by the recent changes - this time Intel-10 on Win64 is failing most of the math lib tests with: http://tinyurl.com/2quy5h Do you have an access to this hardware+software?
Can you try to propose workaround?
Or at least can you tell me what are compile time flags to ifdef it ?
Do you think the free prototype compiler on http://whatif.intel.com/ might be able to build the code and produce the same problem?
Never mind I didn't read though enough.. it appears you have to have an active license to use the prototype compiler... ah well you can still try the evaluation version. - Michael Marcin
Michael Marcin <mmarcin <at> method-solutions.com> writes:
Do you think the free prototype compiler on http://whatif.intel.com/ might be able to build the code and produce the same problem?
Never mind I didn't read though enough.. it appears you have to have an active license to use the prototype compiler... ah well you can still try the evaluation version.
I still missing important variable in this equasio: win64 OS. This particular issue is really OS headers bound. Gennadiy
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Michael Marcin <mmarcin <at> method-solutions.com> writes:
Do you think the free prototype compiler on http://whatif.intel.com/ might be able to build the code and produce the same problem?
Never mind I didn't read though enough.. it appears you have to have an active license to use the prototype compiler... ah well you can still try the evaluation version.
I still missing important variable in this equasio: win64 OS. This particular issue is really OS headers bound.
Normally I'd tell you to go to the Boost.Config testing results page and look at the config_info output for that compiler: that'll list all the macros defined for that compiler. However, the Win64 results seem to have disappeared for some reason :-( But defined(BOOST_INTEL) && defined(_WIN64) would probably do it. HTH, John.
John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
There are more Boost.Test failures coming through caused by the recent changes - this time Intel-10 on Win64 is failing most of the math lib tests with: http://tinyurl.com/2quy5h
Should be fixed now
participants (3)
-
Gennadiy Rozental -
John Maddock -
Michael Marcin