Boost logo

Boost :

From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 02:01:21

David Abrahams wrote:
> Martin Wille writes:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>In that case, can I release 1.30.2? I don't like having the 1.30.1
>>>debacle hanging over my head.
>>There are new regressions on Linux (RC_1_30_0 branch):
>>crc has regressions for gcc-3.1 and gcc-3.2.3
>>config, format and io have regressions for intel 7.1
> According to your chart, the following libraries are all regressing:
> config
> crc
> date_time
> format
> function
> graph
> io
> math
> multi_array
> numeric/interval
> numeric/ublas
> optional
> random
> static_assert
> test
> type_traits
> utility
> Are these real regressions or just newly-tested compilers? Can the
> library authors/maintainers address these problems? Where is our
> maintenance wizard?

gcc.3.3.1/gcc 3.4 are newly tested.

The sixth line on the summary page says:
"Note: failures for gcc-3.3.1 and gcc-3.4 are all "unexpected"
because there are no 1.30.0 results to compare with."

gcc-3.4 can be ignored altogether. It isn't released yet (and very
likely has bugs).

The regressions I reported in the message you responded to
are real regressions.

If there is enough time left then I'll run the tests for
the 1.30.0 release and gcc-3.1.1. The chart for the
RC_1_30_0 branch should look better then.


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