Re: [boost] [function_types] Eliminating or marking up failures?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-02 11:54:17

Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Tobias,
>>
>> function_types is showing 36 failures. What is the plan to eliminate or 
>> mark these up as expected?
> 
>> |function_types|
>>    fast_mem_fn_example:  msvc-7.1
>>    interface_example:  msvc-7.1
> 
> Those ^^ seem regressions - I'll try to fix them.
> 
>>    member_ccs:  darwin-4.0.1  darwin-4.0.1  darwin-4.0.1 
>> gcc-4.1.2_sunos_i86pc  gcc-4.2.1  gcc-4.2.1  gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64 
>> intel-linux-9.0  intel-vc8-win-10.0  msvc-8.0_64
>>    member_ccs_exact:  darwin-4.0.1  darwin-4.0.1  darwin-4.0.1 
>> gcc-4.1.2_sunos_i86pc  gcc-4.2.1  gcc-4.2.1  gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64 
>> intel-linux-9.0  intel-vc8-win-10.0  msvc-8.0_64
>>    nonmember_ccs:  darwin-4.0.1  gcc-4.2.1  gcc-4.2.1 
>> gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64  intel-linux-9.0  intel-vc8-win-10.0  msvc-8.0_64
>>    nonmember_ccs_exact:  darwin-4.0.1  gcc-4.2.1  gcc-4.2.1 
>> gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64  intel-linux-9.0  intel-vc8-win-10.0  msvc-8.0_64
> 
> Those ^^ are due to a
> 
>      #error test skipped
> 
> kind of thing and should be marked as expected (the library's default
> configuration does not know about nonstandard calling conventions
> implemented by those compilers - probably none).
> 
> I recently spotted some problems with other compilers (BCC in
> particular) that deserve a closer look.
> 
> What's the schedule for the upcoming release - IOW how much time do I have?

Since function_types is generating the second highest number of 
failures, I prefer you did the markup right away. It is hard to get 
people to focus on libraries with one or two failures while there are 
still library's with double digit failure rates.

It would be nice if the msvc-7.1 failures were cleared in the next week. 
There is less time pressure for failures on lower priority compilers, 
such as Borland.

--Beman