Hi, I’m working in the safe_float library and while working on it I defined a partial specialisation of numeric_limits for safe_float. I wanted the safe_float<T> to mimic the T numeric_limits in most of the values and just change a few, but nothing complex, one liners only. Then, I created a test for validating those methods/attributes mimicking the internal T are equal to those on T, as follows: //types to be tested using test_types=boost::mpl::list< float, double, long double

;

using namespace boost::safe_float; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( safe_float_numeric_limits_basic_fp_types, FPT, test_types){ BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(std::numeric_limits::is_specialized, std::numeric_limits<FPT>::is_specialized); } The test does not even compile: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "std::__1::numeric_limits >::is_specialized", referenced from: safe_float_numeric_limits_suite::safe_float_numeric_limits_basic_fp_types<double>::test_method() in numeric_limits_test.o After looking at the numeric_limits specialisation for a while, I tried changing the test as follows: if (std::numeric_limits::is_specialized == std::numeric_limits<FPT>::is_specialized){ BOOST_CHECK(true); } else { BOOST_CHECK(false); } And as follows: BOOST_CHECK(std::numeric_limits::is_specialized == std::numeric_limits<FPT>::is_specialized); Both alternatives work. Is there something wrong with BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL? I’m using version 1.47.0 Best regards, Damian