From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-10 20:25:36
David Abrahams wrote:
> >> As far as I know the CVS is in very good health at the moment.
> > Uhmm, I really wouldn't say so! If you look at the main trunk report -
> > there are lots of regressions comparing to 1.30.0, and IMO we ought to
> > fix all these before we branch for the release or anything.
> I can't really tell what these represent.
As usual, a red cell means a regression from the 1.30.0 tarball, a dark
green one - an improvement.
> All of the new iterator library tests which weren't in 1.30.0 are
> showing up as regressions if they're failing.
Yes, it's a known shortcoming - or a feature, depending of how you look
at it. By default, new tests are expected to pass.
> Many are simply not going to get better; they're due to compiler bugs
> which can't be worked around.
Which is totally fine. If you provide us with the list of expected
failures, these will be cleared.
> As for the others, the failures you're reporting with intel-7.1 are
> very strange; my 7.1 compiler doesn't have these problems AFAIK.
Hmm, looks like another configuration problem to me. We'll take a look
> What does the "meta-" prefix mean?
"meta-" is our prefix for non-boost toolsets.
> Do you have some special configuration of each of these compilers?
Well, most of them are not really special. For instance, bcc-* ones were
introduced for the only purpose of being able to test 5.5.1 and 5.5.4
compilers simultaneously. The complete list of differences is available
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk