Re: [boost] Re: Boost 1.31 release?

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-10 22:35:46

David Abrahams wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> All of the *_fail tests that are failing should be cleared.  Actually
> I don't know about bcc-5.6.4 since I don't have that compiler, but I
> expect the conditions are the same as for bcc-5.5.1.

Will be done.

>
> >> 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.
>
> It's a strange standard to hold boost libraries to, passing on
> toolsets which are not checked into the Boost CVS.  Can we do
> something about that?

Well, sure, as long as we are in agreement about having differently
named toolsets for different compiler versions/configurations, e.g.

    bcc-5.5.1
    bcc-5.6.4
    intel-7.1-vc60
    intel-7.1-vc60-stlport

etc.

>
> >> 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
>
> That's good to know.  Is there a link on the main summary page?

It's on our TODO list (the regressions on the branch and on the main trunk
are being run on different machines, and these are slightly out of sync).

Aleksey