Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

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 -
> >
http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/resources/cvs_main_trunk/developer_summary_page.html,
> > 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
at it.

> 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
here -

http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/resources/cs-win32_rc_1_30_0_metacomm/patches.html

Aleksey