From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-12 08:03:45
"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> >> According to your chart, the following libraries are all regressing:
>> >> function
>> >> Are these real regressions or just newly-tested compilers? Can the
>> >> library authors/maintainers address these problems? Where is our
>> >> maintenance wizard?
>> > All of the failures for function are due to newly-tested compilers.
>> Misha and Aleksey -- I think we really need to distinguish those
>> failures from real regressions in the chart somehow or we'll never be
>> able to tell where we stand.
> Well, it was assumed that when adding a new compiler one should use re-run
> the regressions against the previous release and report the current status
> using _those_ expected results.
Many tests might have worked on the new compiler "by chance" with the
previous release. It isn't fair to demand that maintainers to fix
bugs on compilers they haven't agreed to support.
> But in any case, you have a point - for one, it's not always
> practical/possible to do the full re-run. We'll look into it.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk