On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Tom Kent <lists@teeks99.com> wrote:


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Tom Kent <lists@teeks99.com> wrote:


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:16 PM, John Maddock via Boost-Testing <boost-testing@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Nearly all the Teeks clang tests are in C++98 mode in-spite of their names, for example http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/teeks99-02-dc3-5-14-Docker-64on64-boost-bin-v2-libs-config-test-config_test-test-clang-linux-3-5~c++14-debug.html is listed as "C++14" but is actually C++98 (check the __cpluplus version).  Which means the tests all sort of duplicate each other :(

Does that look like you'd expect? Is the error expected?


It looks like that gets error is related to a pre-c++11 version of libstdc++ installed on the VM. I've attempted to update that teeks99-02-dc3.5-14 runner with a new version, we'll see how it goes.

That raises the bigger issue of libstdc++ vs libc++ (or libstdcxx, STLport, etc). I'm thinking that maybe the clang instanced (>=3.5) should be switched to libc++? Any thoughts? Maybe a question for the developers list?

I've got a modern version of libstdc++ (6) installed on that machine, and the config test now passes :-)

However, the affected clang regression runs jumped from taking 2hrs to 6.5hrs...is this expected? Are there some huge, intense tests that only kickoff in C++11/14 mode? I had assumed from following the list that the c++11/14 specific code was limited to just a handful of libraries. 

Does anyone know if there is any test timing data available so that I could look and find any big offenders?

Tom