From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-15 06:15:13
Misha Bergal wrote:
> Martin Wille writes:
>>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.
> Martin, I was the one who broke it a week or so ago. We used msxsl
> which has different behavior than libxslt. We switched to libxslt to
> eliminate the need for testing on both processors and to be able to
> use exslt extensions (www.exslt.org).
> Hopefully, this has been fixed in the new version of the reports.
Yes, it indeed has fixed it.
>>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
> Sorry, probably a miscommunication on my part, unless you are
> referring to http://tinyurl.com/za31.
Oh, I have missed Aleksey's reply. Very sorry for that.
> I would appreciate, if you cc'ed your metacomm regression related
> postings to boost_regression_at_[hidden]
> we are unable to closely follow discussions on the list).
I understand that. Perhaps there should be a boost-regression list,
Another small problem: the online help for report.py says
"--locate-root the same as --locate-root in compiler_status"
However, I have to run it with --locate-root $root/bin/boost,
while I'm running compiler_status with $root as argument.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk