From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-23 10:27:03
David Abrahams writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> David Abrahams writes:
>>> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> Should we mark Boost.Python as unusable with gcc 2.95.3/Intel 7.1-8.0
>>>> on Linux? The number of failures for these looks unhealthy --
>>> Well, no, we should fix whatever is causing the regressions.
>> What regressions are you referring to? Everything besides
>> "data_members" has been failing in 1.31 as well. I was talking about
>> green/yellow failures -- about 1/3 of the tests fail; is the library
>> still usable in this state?
> Oh, I understand.
> The problems with gcc-2 only occur when C++ exceptions are thrown and
> the framework catches them, which happens quite often in those
> tests. So technically gcc-2 is usable if you're careful.
OK. Does that imply that somebody is going to look into fixing
"data_members" regression with gcc-2.95.3-linux*
> As for Intel, it certainly used to work at some point, and I'm pretty
> sure LBL is using it successfully. My guess is that it's a linking
> problem that we can correct.
>>> But as far as I can tell from the link you posted, only Intel 8.0
>>> is having a problem.
>> And, judging from the Martin's 1.31 results XML, it's not a regression
> I understand. If we can't fix the supposed linking problem I think
> we should mark it unusable.
Martin, could you please upload your latest regression's bjam log to
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk