|
|
@@ -167,18 +167,6 @@
|
|
|
syntax .to_container( c ) was applied to all list_of() expressions.
|
|
|
</note>
|
|
|
</mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
- <mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
- <test name="list_of"/>
|
|
|
- <toolset name="intel-win32-8_1"/>
|
|
|
- <toolset name="intel-win32-9_0"/>
|
|
|
- <note author="Thorsten Ottosen">
|
|
|
- The test would (most likely) compile and run properly if
|
|
|
- the test did not use list_of() with boost::array.
|
|
|
- I would be very happy to see an intel programmer
|
|
|
- submit a patch. It is quite strange that it only happens on
|
|
|
- intel's windows compilers.
|
|
|
- </note>
|
|
|
- </mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
<test name="list_of_workaround"/>
|
|
|
@@ -2685,16 +2673,6 @@ for more information.
|
|
|
For other compilers it is simply a bug in the standard library.
|
|
|
</note>
|
|
|
</mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
- <mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
- <test name="partial_workaround"/>
|
|
|
- <toolset name="vc-7_1"/>
|
|
|
- <toolset name="vc-8_0"/>
|
|
|
- <toolset name="intel-win32-8_1"/>
|
|
|
- <toolset name="intel-win32-9_0"/>
|
|
|
- <note author="Thorsten Ottosen">
|
|
|
- This failure is of no importance to this compiler.
|
|
|
- </note>
|
|
|
- </mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
<mark-expected-failures>
|
|
|
<test name="reversible_range"/>
|
|
|
<toolset name="tru64cxx65"/>
|