Re: [boost] Nitpicking Win32 Regression Test Results

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-07 20:24:28

At 06:51 PM 12/7/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:

 >I'm picking through the Win32 regression test results to see where
 >we stand.
 >
 >Here are some concerns I have (on a per-library basis):
 >
 >Filesystem: operations_test is failing on Borland but not anything else,
 >even though most of the compilers use the same code as Borland.

It's a Borland problem with last_write_time(). We may have to disable the 
function for Borland.

 >Format: Total failure on CodeWarrior 8.3, Intel 7.0, and MSVC 6.0; we
 >should probably either support these libraries or add notes into
 >win32-notes-map.txt. (It looks like an Intel 7.0/MSVC 6.0 library bug;
 >potentially a name lookup bug in CW 8.3).

These tests were working as recently as September 1. So I think we should 
at least try to fix the problem or problems.

 >Lambda: totally broken on Borland, MSVC 6.0, and Intel 7.0; I've marked
 >these as compiler bugs, because Lambda won't ever work on these 
compilers.

Thanks.

 >Multi-array: Totally broken on Borland; I think we can work around this,
 >though.

Are you and/or Ron going to look into workarounds?

 >numeric/ublas: Failures on CodeWarrior 8.3; I _think_ that the line it's
 >pointing out is missing a "typename" (there are other occurrences of the
 >same construct).

Where? It already has a "typename" where I would have thought one is 
needed:

indexing_vector_assign (functor_type::template make_debug_functor<typename 
vector<value_type>::reference, value_type> (), cv, e);

 >regex: Library build failure on CodeWarrior 8.3

I was working on that earlier today, and have emailed John Maddock and 
Howard Hinnant with a narrowing of the problem. With luck one or the other 
will be able to come up with a workaround.

 > ...
 >utility: enable_if_* tests fail on Borland, CW 8.3, MSVC 6.0, and MSVC 
7.0;
 >
 >I've noted that they're all due to compiler bugs.

Thanks.

 >In a perfect world, I'd love to see all of the tests either passing or
 >noted as a compiler/platform/standard library bug for a release. Not
 >holding my breath, of course :)

I don't want to give up quite yet on the tests that passed recently but are 
failing now. Regardless of that, it would be nice to have notes on tests we 
know are never going to pass.

Thanks,

--Beman