From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 08:02:38
> OK, I'll start running them again tomorrow. Its just uncommenting a
> line in a shell script, no biggie.
> FWIW, there had been numerous comments to the effect of "why do we
> even bother with this compiler?", and noone ever responded to my
> numerous threats to stop running the regression tests with SunPRO, so
> I just stopped them last week to save cycles. I didn't think they
> would be missed.
Fair enough. If only we could figure out why Boost.Test was failing (it
looked like a legitimate compiler error), we could probably get the failure
rate down quite a bit.
> Who should I work with to get the appropriate tests marked as
> known-to-fail or N/A? This exercise is necessary for some
> gcc-on-Solaris tests as well. For instance, all of the "*_lib" tests
> in Boost.Thread fail because "gcc -static" won't link with *any*
> shared libs. Solaris does not provide static versions of -lrt or
> -lthread, so these tests fail to link. There really should really be
> a "-prefer-static" option to gcc.. Alternately, the Jamfiles could be
> hacked to use -Wl,-Bstatic / -Wl,-Bdynamic guards around the inclusion
> of the Boost.Thread lib for these tests.
That would probably be my preferred option, is it just a case of
adding -Wl,-Bdynamic to the very end of the command line? Rene would
probably know the best way to fix this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk