Boost logo

Boost :

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
> reports

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
configuration issue:

Run output []:

error while loading shared libraries: 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at