Subject: Re: [boost] spirt status?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-27 03:30:35
Bryce Lelbach wrote:
>> Could spirit library developers take a look at this and give us
>> an idea of what we should do about this? Is anyone working
>> on this? Should we just roll back and try again before the next
> Ramey, I haven't really had a chance to look into this -too- much.
> However, I have
> compiled Serialization multiple times on the major development
> toolchains (Intel 11 on windows and linux; mingw 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 on
> windows; VS 10 and VS 7.1 on
> windows; gcc 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.2 and 4.1 on linux; clang 2.9 on
> linux). I have no
> problems on any of these compilers anymore; to my knowledge, nobody
> else is having
> issues, either (I spent a good amount of last week working on that).
FYI, on my machine, I have trouble building with msvc7.1 and
I see the test matrix has the same problem.
> The only outstanding issue is the test matrix. Yes, admittedly, the
> grammar stuff
> is a bit on the slow side compile-time wise. However, I cannot
> reproduce these 300 second timeouts that the build machines have been
> reporting. I haven't had a
> chance to talk to the people running the relevant machines, but I am
> having a
> hard time buying that those machines are taking more than five
> minutes to
> instantiate my Spirit grammar.
> Let's take a look at the results from Intel's compiler.
I understand that not everyone is on the same page here. I'm
hoping that this can be reconciled soon. I notice that the almost
all the spirit tests pass on these compilers - and I don't think the
serialization grammar is one of the simplest ones around. How
can wave be compiling and the serialization grammar not be?
I'm hoping that someone from the spirit group might take a look
There is also the VACPP compiler - AIX IBM which also
has to be addressed. I know that those on the IBM compiler
team have invested a sincere effort to make sure that their
compiler passes the boost tests in general and the serialization
library in particular. I feel we cannot let them down.
Basically, my view is that we cannot ship something that
doesn't work at least as well as the previous version.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk