From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-19 09:54:42
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:01:01 -0500, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote
> A clarification for developers monitoring regression reports: a
> significant number of Linux regressions showing up in the current
So 'regressions' against 1.31 now show up as 'red' boxes?
> regression/developer/summary.html) 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.
Some of the date-time failures with gcc2.95 appear to be a runtime
Run output :
error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++-libc6.3-2.so.3: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or directory
Martin, any ideas why many of the tests can pass and some can fail? Only
difference I see is that the failing tests are low-level template tests that
do not link boost date-time while the passing tests all link the library.
As for Intel, it looks like there's a couple tests I need to mark as failing...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk