[boost] Re: Release of 1.30.2 imminent

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-14 11:06:52

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:u1xvonvob.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:ufzk5uply.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> >> "Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There are still problems with Optional, related to some compilers
> >> > not finding std swap().  I wrote the original code following
> >> > compressed_pair.hpp, which is via unqualified call (to activate
> >> > ADL), plus a using declaration at function scope for GCC.  Recently,
> >> > Jens Maurer patched it adding an alternative using declaration at
> >> > namespace scope (optional_detail) for GCC, but this seems not to
> >> > work as the regressions show.
> >> >
> >> > I don't have access to any of the failing compilers
> >>
> >> Which compilers are failing and where are the regression report pages?
> >>
> > Sorry for the delay, I was leaving the office when you posted this....
> >
> > Most problems related to swap ocurr with GCC>3.3
>
> Well, 3.4 isn't even a released compiler so As far as I'm concerned
> it doesn't count.
OK.

> 3.3.x is another story.
>
> > and VC==6.0
>
> Hmm.
>
> > It appears that this problem ocurrs both with 1.30.0 and the current rc 1.30.2
> >
> > On Linux_1_30_0:
> > gcc3.3:
http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test
> > gcc-3.3
> > gcc3.3.1:
http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test
> > gcc-3.3.1
>
> <snip>
>
> Unfortunately, nearly all of these links point to invalid targets so
> my browser doesn't find them :(.  Could you just post links to the
> summary page one level up?
>
Sure.
>From the main status page, at: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/
The link that reads "(Linux-1_30_0)", under the title "Linux", goes to:

http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-1_30_0.html

There are the failures I've shown for gcc3.3 and gcc3.3.1

This page shows the regression for 1.30.0 right?
But they show that the newer gcc failed (without Jens patch).

> > On Linux: All tests passed. (how come?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.  If it doesn't say 1_30_0 in the page
> it's probably a test of the HEAD revision.
>
The page is: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux.html
So it should correspond to the HEAD revision.
IIUC, the HEAD revision contains Jen's broken patch, so this one should fail.

I wonder if the reports are swaped (the page titled 1.30.0 being the HEAD and viceversa)

>
> > On Libux-rc-1_30_0:
>        ^
>        ?
>
> > gcc3.4:
http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test
> > gcc-3.4-cvs
> > gcc3.3:
http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test
> > gcc-3.3
> > gcc3.3.1:
> > http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0-links.html#optional_test
> > gcc-3.3.1
>
> Aren't these the same tests as cited above?
>
Not exactly.
This result appears in the page:
http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux-rc-1_30_0.html

which is the third Linux report from the main page.

>
> > On Win32_1_30_1:
> > gcc:
http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32-1_30_1-links.html#optional_test-gcc
>
> Yeah, the "fix" by Jens looks broken to me.  Jens, to which versions
> of GCC does this patch apply?

It was intended for 3.3 as he told me.

I think that the correct patch is to revert Jens' fix.
(go back to revision 1.9).

Can you and others run a quick test to see if this fix is correct?

Fernando Cacciola