I would hope I could convince you to lookinto the remaining failures for serialization. There is only a couple of pending issues. That is about 2 or 3 issues account for all the test failures. Robert Ramey Nicola Musatti wrote:

Hallo, this is really meant for Alisdair, but I thought that others might be interested. As far as I'm concerned I believe there's not much more that I can do in the 1.34 timeframe, so I consider the remaining failures as 'expected'.

Before looking into how to actually mark them as such I wanted to know if anybody is still working on Borland support for BCB2006.

Cheers, Nicola Musatti

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Nicola Musatti wrote:

Hallo, this is really meant for Alisdair, but I thought that others might be interested. As far as I'm concerned I believe there's not much more that I can do in the 1.34 timeframe, so I consider the remaining failures as 'expected'.

Before looking into how to actually mark them as such I wanted to know if anybody is still working on Borland support for BCB2006.

I had reached a similar conclusion, but will be taking a proper look next week (I hope, workload is very compressed at the moment) My initial response would be: Mark up any expected failures that are common with BCB 5.64. Mark up libraries that are not supported, such as graph, Python, uBlas and Wave. Then anything left is a regression, and should be explained or resolved. We can put a note in any regressions marked up in the XML. Given there are known regressions in 5.81 that are fixed by the compiler in 5.82, I would suggest we focus on the latter. In fact, I would suggest Metacomm stop testing on 5.81 now, especially if it will mean a faster testing cycle, and mark 5.82 as no-longer beta. -- AlisdairM