From 4b9520712b5039d2ea938fef7d4a7db8b413f176 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Niels Dekker <nielsdekker@xs4all.nl>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:34:07 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Second attempt to mark value_init_test failure of Intel 9.0.
 First attempt, changeset [54560], did not "mark up" as "expected failure" at
 www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/utility_.html

[SVN r54611]
---
 status/explicit-failures-markup.xml | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml b/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
index 882e449cbc..a4f796c7c5 100644
--- a/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
+++ b/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
@@ -5747,7 +5747,8 @@ With aC++, the tests compile cleanly in strict ansi mode and succeed.
         </test>
         <test name="value_init_test">
           <mark-failure>
-            <toolset name="intel-9.0"/>
+            <toolset name="intel-9.0*"/>
+            <toolset name="intel-linux-9.0*"/>
             <note author="Niels Dekker" date="2009-07-01">
             When I made the conversion from value_initialized&lt;T&gt; to T&amp;
             const-correct, this specific compiler version gave compile errors.