From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-14 05:50:01
Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
> What's still holding up the 1.31.0 release? The regression tests are
> looking reasonably good. Ideally I'd like to see format, quaternion, and
> octonion doing better, but I'm not sure if that'll happen. What else?
There are a couple of regressions on Linux:
config regresses for gcc2.95.3 and intel-7.1
graph, random and test regress for gcc-2.95.3
multi_array regresses for gcc-2.95.3-stlport.
conversion regresses for intel-7.1
A lot of python tests seem to fail.
Another problem is that the detailed report created by the xsl reporting
mechanism is broken (the summary seems to be correct). It used to be
correct and I don't know when it broke. The problem is that the line
that lists the toolsets is being ordered by name but the results are
not ordered by that name.
I posted two small patches to the XSL reporting several weeks ago,
btw, but did not receive any response (they are not related to the
I reported a Boost.Thread problem some time ago (the result of
m_tss.set() is not checked by thread_safe_ptr<>); no response from
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk