Re: [boost] Re: What's left for 1.31.0?

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
>>current problem).
> 
> 
> 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]

will do.

                                              (unfortunately, sometimes
> we are unable to closely follow discussions on the list).

I understand that. Perhaps there should be a boost-regression list,
anyway.

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.

Regards,
m