Hi Stefan & Jonathan, "Stefan Slapeta" <stefan@slapeta.com> wrote in message news:cfaeor$omk$1@sea.gmane.org... | | Jonathan Wakely wrote: | | > This fail (and a related warning for GCC 3.3) | > http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-links.html#range-compa... | > would be fixed by applying the attached patch | | I've commented this testcase in the jamfile last week; I don't | understand why it's still executed on some configurations! Right now I have given this fix a low priority since I'm focusing on the documentation and more important tests. I made the test in the first place to see which compilers that did not choke on it; it might have been a sligh abuse of our test setup, but it is the only way to gain access to a lot of compilers. So please don't worry too much about this test. br Thorsten

"Stefan Slapeta" <stefan@slapeta.com> wrote in message news:cfals0$cra$1@sea.gmane.org... | I don't see yet what to fix here: compat2 differs from compat1 _only_ in | the missing 'typename'. [This was also the reason for me to remove this | test during you absence.] ok. | What actually does the information about how compilers treat a missing | 'typename' tell you? I was interested in the combined result. Eg, it might happen that one compiler did not pass compat1 while passing compat2. br Thorsten