Re: [boost] Boost regression notification (2006-02-07 [HEAD])

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-07 16:50:52

Douglas Gregor wrote:
> Boost Regression test failures
> Report time: 2006-02-07T14:42:00Z
> 
> This report lists all regression test failures on release platforms.
> 
> Detailed report:
>   http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-HEAD/developer/issues.html
> 
> The following platforms have a large number of failures:
>   cw-9_4
> 
> 1787 failures in 35 libraries (374 are from non-broken platforms)
>   numeric/ublas (1)
>   random (5)
>   multi_index (78 of 80 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   concept_check (24 of 25 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   functional/hash (44 of 45 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   iostreams (4)
>   regex (16)
>   graph (8)
>   signals (36)
>   program_options (2 of 9 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   foreach (12)
>   rational (4)
>   test (15)
>   parameter (22)
>   numeric/conversion (10)
>   typeof (24 of 25 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   python (61)
>   algorithm/minmax (4)
>   wave (2 of 6 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   tr1 (115)
>   integer (1)
>   serialization (719 of 1055 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   optional (22 of 23 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   spirit (36 of 38 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   pool (1)
>   xpressive (26)
>   date_time (19 of 26 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   thread (4)
>   multi_array (12)
>   config (3)
>   algorithm/string (16)
>   ptr_container (12 of 24 failures are from non-broken platforms)
>   math (10)
>   filesystem (43)
>   assign (2)

Hmm… lexical ordering would be nice here. What's the ordering criterion now?

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Witt
witt_at_[hidden]