Re: [boost] spirt status?

Subject: Re: [boost] spirt status?
From: Bryce Lelbach (admin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-27 03:03:18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:00:35 +0800
Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
> >>> release?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Regards,

Agreed. I'll put some more work into this week. Hopefully it will be ready for
next release (which will be, what, the main 1.45 release?).

- -- 
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
http://groups.google.com/group/ariel_devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzHzrYACgkQO/fqqIuE2t4u1ACglDa53IdbXuL5AZut4n5lvShh
qfYAoJiJN/dQC3jyaNEmc5nJ82+EqCFM
=iDd7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----