Re: [boost] Re: is_convertible for intel 7.1 and 8.0

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-20 12:46:15

At 10:27 PM 11/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote:

 >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >

 >Hmm, my problem is that I'm updating that library now and all of the
 >failures you've shown other than tricky_incomplete_type_test seem to
 >be dependent on it.  Now the patch *breaks* my tests if I leave it in.
 >Furthermore tricky_incomplete_type_test is a separate test precisely
 >because it's a corner case which many compilers can't handle.  It's
 >probably not a good idea to sacrifice is_convertible to get it to
 >work.

I've just retested iterator_adaptors_test with is_convertible.hpp at 
version 1.18 (pre-patch) and version 1.21 (the current HEAD). Both are 
passing.

The only thing I can think that this could mean is that some other factor, 
such as the toolset or a compiler service pack, is affecting the results.

I'll try the full regression tests against 1.18 to see what would happen if 
we rolled back the Intel changes. I'll report results as soon as the run 
finishes.

 >
 >>  >  It seems reasonable to me that until you
 >>  >can give some indication of *specifically* what the patch was
 >>  >"fixing", it should be rolled back.
 >>
 >> Before the patch, a number of tests were failing. The first error
 >> message was:
 >>
 >> C:\boost\site\boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp(173): error:
 >> incomplete type is not allowed
 >>
 >> Tests that failed before the patch included:
 >>
 >>    utility/reverse_iterator_example.cpp
 >>    utility/indirect_iterator_example.cpp
 >>    utility/counting_iterator_example.cpp
 >>    iterator\test\reverse_iterator_test.cpp
 >>    iterator\test\filter_iterator_test.cpp
 >>    iterator\test\indirect_iterator_test.cpp
 >>    iterator\test\iterator_adaptor_test.cpp
 >>    iterator\test\iterator_adaptor_cc.cpp
 >>    iterator\test\is_convertible_fail.cpp
 >>    type_traits\test\tricky_incomplete_type_test.cpp
 >>    multi_array/test/resize.cpp
 >>    multi_array/test/stl_interaction.cpp
 >>    etc.
 >
 >That's *very* strange because I certainly tested the iterators
 >library on intel5, intel6, intel7 and intel8 when I committed it to
 >the HEAD and *all* tests that were expected to pass, were passing.
 >
 >It would be very helpful if you could list some other tests which
 >were not dependent on the iterators library.

I think only tests which failed were those dependent on the iterators 
library.

 >
 >> I can send you the bjam log file from just before the patch was
 >> applied if you'd like.
 >
 >It might be a good idea.

Done.

 >One more question: do you recall why you added tests for
 >__EDG_VERSION__ *as well as* for BOOST_INTEL ?

John Maddock added those about version 1.8. I don't know why.

--Beman