RE: [boost] Re: Experimental audience-targeted regression results

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-24 08:49:43

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> >
> > Well, check out the latest developer report -
> > 
> http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/developer_summary
> _page.html!
> 
> Intel-7.1 is misconfigured. ADL is disabled but
> BOOST_NO_ARGUMENT_DEPENDENT_LOOKUP is not set. That is why
> intrusive_ptr_test and shared_ptr_test fail.

Well, we didn't do anything special to mis-configure it ;), besides
choosing MSVC 6 compatibility mode (during the setup, as opposite to
MSVC 7.0 one). Any ideas what's the right way to fix that?

> 
> This also demonstrates a different problem, the ADL-related issue is
> masked by the fact that shared_ptr_test is marked an expected failure.

Yep. This is a shortcoming of the file-based failure report. Collecting
Boost.Test detailed test run results will solve that, and it's on our
to-do list.

> It's not since I fixed it. ;-)
> 
> Beman's approach, where unexpected failures were automatically
> determined by comparing the current run with a previous run, seems to 
> cope better with this scenario, and requires no manual input.

Does it? What if the previous run was a total failure - what the next
one is going to show? IMO it can work only if you have a trusted
snapshot of what is considered a "good" CVS state and you update it
"pessimistically" - that is, remove the expected failures that are now
passing and leave everything else intact - automatically, of course. And
that's exactly what we are going to do.

Aleksey