Boost logo

Boost :

From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-06 05:21:03

Nicola Musatti wrote:

> Hallo,
> 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
and Wave.
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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at