This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: New boost regressions since yesterday for gcc 3.0.1
- To: Peter Schmid <schmid at snake dot iap dot physik dot tu-darmstadt dot de>
- Subject: Re: New boost regressions since yesterday for gcc 3.0.1
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 14 Aug 2001 17:40:42 +0200
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0108141808520.17274-100000@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de>
Peter Schmid <schmid@snake.iap.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> writes:
| There are two new failures when running the boost regression test
| suite vs gcc 3.0.1 on the i686-pc-linux-gnu target. These problems were
| not present yesterday.
Peter,
Please, could you tell me where those DBL_MAX are coming from? We
don't use those symbols in <limits>
[...]
| **** test failed: traits::const_max == traits::max(), file: ../libs/integer/integer_traits_test.cpp, line: 50
| Checking short; min is -32768, max is 32767
| Checking unsigned short; min is 0, max is 65535
| Checking int; min is -2147483648, max is 2147483647
| Checking unsigned int; min is 0, max is 4294967295
| Checking long; min is -2147483648, max is 2147483647
| Checking unsigned long; min is 0, max is 4294967295
| Checking int64_t (possibly long long); min is -9223372036854775808, max is 9223372036854775807
| Checking uint64_t (possibly unsigned long long); min is 0, max is 18446744073709551615
What is wrong with the above?
-- Gaby