From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 05:21:03
Nicola Musatti wrote:
> this is really meant for Alisdair, but I thought that others might be
> interested. As far as I'm concerned I believe there's not much more
> that I can do in the 1.34 timeframe, so I consider the remaining
> failures as 'expected'.
> Before looking into how to actually mark them as such I wanted to
> know if anybody is still working on Borland support for BCB2006.
I had reached a similar conclusion, but will be taking a proper look
next week (I hope, workload is very compressed at the moment)
My initial response would be:
Mark up any expected failures that are common with BCB 5.64.
Mark up libraries that are not supported, such as graph, Python, uBlas
Then anything left is a regression, and should be explained or
resolved. We can put a note in any regressions marked up in the XML.
Given there are known regressions in 5.81 that are fixed by the
compiler in 5.82, I would suggest we focus on the latter.
In fact, I would suggest Metacomm stop testing on 5.81 now, especially
if it will mean a faster testing cycle, and mark 5.82 as no-longer beta.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk