From: daniel_james_at_[hidden]
Date: 2007-10-20 20:51:43
Author: danieljames
Date: 2007-10-20 20:51:43 EDT (Sat, 20 Oct 2007)
New Revision: 40236
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/40236
Log:
Markup test that fail because of poor long double support.
gcc-3.4.3_sunos doesn't seem to be tested any more, but I'll leave it in.
PA Risc has a software long double which doesn't seem to be very well supported
by the standard library functions.
Text files modified:
trunk/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml | 16 ++++++----------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Modified: trunk/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
==============================================================================
--- trunk/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml (original)
+++ trunk/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml 2007-10-20 20:51:43 EDT (Sat, 20 Oct 2007)
@@ -1450,18 +1450,14 @@
</mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
- <test name="hash_float_test"/>
+ <test name="hash_long_double_test"/>
<toolset name="gcc-3.4.3_sunos"/>
+ <toolset name="acc-pa_risc"/>
<note author="Daniel James">
- On this compiler the hash function is returning the same value
- for <code>std::numeric_limits<long double>::max()</code>,
- <code>std::numeric_limits<long double>::max() / 2</code> and
- <code>std::numeric_limits<long double>::max() * 3 / 4</code>.
- This suggests the hash function isn't taking into account the
- full range of <code>long double</code> - it might be
- converting it to a <code>double</code>. This won't cause
- anything to break, but means that the hash function isn't
- as good as it should be for <code>long double</code>s.
+ This platform has poor support for <code>long double</code> so
+ the hash function perform poorly for values out of the range
+ of <code>double</code> or if they differ at a greater precision
+ that <code>double</code> is capable of representing.
</note>
</mark-expected-failures>