Boost logo

Boost :

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-06 16:55:03

Thomas Witt wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> The optional library has a number of new
>> failures now. I see a checkin to boost/optional/optional.hpp,
>> made by Fernando Cacciola:
> Thanks for investigating.
OK, my fault, I certainly misundersood that _before_ the freeze commits
needed approval.
But then of course they all seemed very simple changes, and my local tests
all passed.

>> 2. Apparently, the change broke something, including
>> mainstream compilers such as gcc-4.1. We're now in a
>> dead freeze. Fernando, what do you think we can
>> do at this point?

The new regressions corresponding to "optional_test_ref_fail2" shouldn't be
there at all.
This test has been removed from the jamfile (that was part of the commit)
Why are they still there?

But the new regressions corresponding to Darwin 4.01, hp_cxx_71_006_tru64
and hp_cxx_65_042_teu64 are puzzling me.
I can't relate the error with my changes because this problem have been
shown by other gcc's for a while, so I don't understand why it is a -new-
I knew about it before my changes. I've been meaning to fix them but I need
a gcc, for which I need a linux box, and I didn't have one at hand.
But how come my changes caused even more of these failures now, in new
compilers, I can't tell. The same failure on other gcc's where showing even
before my changes.

Anyway, I've spent most of yesterday and today working on this, but got

I don't have MSVC 60 nor 7.0, but I have 7.1.
After I figured how to test against a VC7.1 in a machine that has VC80 as
well (it took me a while), I only discovered that it doesn't fail there.
So I tried cygwin, which has gcc 3.4.4. It also took me a lot of time to be
able to use it (from having to build bjam from scratch onward). But then
gain, it doesn't fail there.

So finally I installed a linux box on a windows XP machine (from extending
the partition onward).
I just finished doing that (and installing boost to start testing it), but I
haven't finish fixing the gcc failures (which are the most important IMO).

> Either this gets fixed by tonight, or we'll have to back out the

OK. What's tonight exacly in UTC time?


Fernando Cacciola

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at