Subject: Re: [boost] spirt status?
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-27 03:00:35
On 10/27/10 3:30 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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
> at this.
> 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.
I agree. I think it's better to let it mature first. I am not
testing on VC7.1 anymore, but there were some discussions a while
back that this has been addressed. At any rate, I don't think it
(the port) is ready for prime time yet.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk