Re: [boost] Boost regression notification (2006-10-04 [RC_1_34_0])

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-05 09:32:34

On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:

> "Michael Goldshteyn" <mgoldshteyn_at_[hidden]> wrote
>
>>> 434 failures in 15 libraries
>>>  filesystem (5)
>>>  graph (1)
>>>  io (1)
>>>  iostreams (14)
>>>  mpl (4)
>>>  parameter (11)
>>>  program_options (9)
>>>  python (214)
>>>  rational (5)
>>>  serialization (16)
>>>  spirit (5)
>>>  test (2)
>>>  tr1 (56)
>>>  utility (1)
>>>  xpressive (90)
>>
>> Well, it's pretty much a given that python, tr1, and xpressive are  
>> holding
>> back 1.34. So, what is the prognosis on each of these? Is this  
>> build ever
>> going to happen, or are we headed for 2007?
>
> Well, if you take a look at the *latest* regression results, it's much
> better.  In fact, I think xpressive should be failure-free once the  
> last of
> tuesday tests is re-run, and python has only a few failures.
>
> How does this work?  Are we going to wait for zero failures?  Often  
> fixing
> two failures may be more difficult than fixing 400...

Usually we wait until we hit zero failures. That doesn't mean that  
everything works on every compiler; often, it means that we've  
explicitly marked up some failures as "expected," because they are  
too hard to fix on a given compiler. Some of the sun-5.8 ICEs would  
fall into that category, I expect.

        Cheers,
        Doug