From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 10:56:25
On Monday 19 July 2004 12:34 am, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> That's strange. I wouldn't have proposed a patch without first running
> the regression tests.
I hope it isn't compiler-dependent :( Which compiler are you using? Also, are
you checking the program exit code? The test doesn't actually print anything,
it just returns -1 on failure. I've changed the test to complain loudly if
something does fail.
> So because it was failing, I was looking for a patch. And I only
> submitted such a patch when there was no more failure in
> adjacency_matrix_test (what would have been the benefit otherwise?).
> Moreover, I hope you agree with me that the previous code was wrong.
> Adding a positive value to an end() iterator is obviously an error.
I didn't mean to sound accusing; my apologies if I came across that way. The
pre-patch code is clearly wrong; I'm just not sure how to fix it at the
> Consequently, I'm not sure the failure is caused by my patch. Maybe
> another patch somewhere (not necessarily in the Graph library) did break
> something. For example, I see that 196 lines were changed in
> adjacency_matrix_test.cpp yesterday. So maybe...
I looked at the changes to adjacency_matrix_test.cpp; they're only formatting
changes ("cvs diff -b" shows no differences). Reverting the patch to
boost/graph/adjacency_matrix.hpp does "fix" the problem for me (i.e.,
adjacency_matrix_test passes now). I can dig into this later today or this
evening, unless you have a chance; I don't understand the representation well
enough to put in a quick fix now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk