[boost] Re: Linux regressions

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-19 02:47:50

gcc 2.95 failures looks like my fault.

I added #include <ios>, which is apparently missing.

Is there flag that separate standard/classic iostream (If I guess
correctly - it shoult be enough)

Gennadiy.

"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:m2k6uqyhrm.fsf_at_meta-comm.com...
>
> A clarification for developers monitoring regression reports: a
> significant number of Linux regressions showing up in the current
> reports
>
(http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost-regression/developer/summary.htm
l)
> is NOT a result of some recent checkin. Most of these failures were
> there for some time, but weren't highlighted as regressions because
> the report generation tools didn't have the data for this platform to
> compare against. This was fixed yesterday.
>
> Similarly, new regressions for "cw-8.3" toolset are only a result of
> updating the old toolset name ("cwpro83") in the 1.30.2 results.
>
> I hope we can take care of these new issues quickly, although
> "gcc-2.95.3-stlport-4.5.3-linux" in particular doesn't look that good.
> Is it still a widely-used configuration?
>
> -- 
> Aleksey Gurtovoy
> MetaCommunications Engineering