Boost logo

Boost :

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-24 09:08:03

Peter Dimov wrote:
> > We just need to agree on the configuration, here. Currently, we run
> > Intel 7.1 in MSVC 6.0 compatibility mode, and Beman probably has his
> > configured for 7.0. I am not sure which configuration is more common
> > in the real world - assuming that this is the criterion we want to
> > stick to.
> Testing on different Intel configurations is a good thing; it has
> uncovered a problem in shared_ptr_test. It's just different
> configurations need to have different (non-generic) toolset names
> (intel-7.1-vc6, intel-7.1-vc7, intel-7.1-vc6-stlport...)

Unfortunately the number of tested configurations is somewhat bound by
the length of the compilation cycle, but as far as the naming goes, we
totally agree.

> Also, please note that I don't mind the _developer summary_ being
> "aggressive" in its pass/fail reports. There are no "expected
> failures" there as far as I'm concerned. Every failure needs to be
> reported in red, with pass->fail transitions emphasized.

Do you mean that there are no expected failures for the smart_ptr
library (which we'll take care of soon), or something else? 'Cause I,
for instance, definitely would like to see a CVS health report in terms
of regressions rather than absolute failures.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at