uBLAS results for vc7.1 too good to be true?
http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost-regression/developer/numeric-ubla... (http://tinyurl.com/3vmlv ) Almost all results for vc7.1 are marked "unexpected success". I think this compiler is around for enough long time to mark these results as "just expected" success? B.
At 08:55 AM 10/10/2004, Bronek Kozicki wrote:
http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost-regression/developer/numeric-ubla s_release.html (http://tinyurl.com/3vmlv ) Almost all results for vc7.1 are marked "unexpected success". I think this compiler is around for enough long time to mark these results as "just expected" success?
IIRC, 7.1 is compliant enough that we should expect 100% success. While there are some namespace and other issues, we've been able to find fairly simple workarounds at least for the case I've seen. --Beman
Bronek Kozicki writes:
http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost-regression/developer/numeric-ubla... (http://tinyurl.com/3vmlv ) Almost all results for vc7.1 are marked "unexpected success".
... and if you follow the cell's link, you'll see the following: Notes This test case used to fail in the reference ("last-known-good") release.
I think this compiler is around for enough long time to mark these results as "just expected" success?
I used to plan to get rid of all "used-to-fail-in-the-LKG-release" dark green cells just before producing the final "release reports", but I'm not so sure now. It may be a good thing if we let users see how much things have improved. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
participants (3)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
Beman Dawes -
Bronek Kozicki