Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] spirt status?
From: Bryce Lelbach (admin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-28 02:34:07

Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:35:13 +0400
Vladimir Prus <vladimir_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Bryce Lelbach wrote:
> > Compile [2010-10-27 01:49:54 UTC]: fail
> >
> > "/sierra/Sntools/extras/compilers/intel/Compiler/11.0/081/bin/intel64/icpc"
> > -c -xc++ -O0 -g -w1 -inline-level=0 -fPIC -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1
> > "/scratch/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/serialization/build/intel-
> linux-11.0/debug/xml_wgrammar.o"
> > "../libs/serialization/src/xml_wgrammar.cpp"
> >
> > 300 second time limit exceeded
> >
> > The test box is running Red Hat, and has an impressive Dual Duo-Core Intel
> > Xeon (3Ghz) with 8Gb RAM. My machine is running an experimental Linux
> > kernel built with Clang and full debugging symbols (not to mention my
> > kernel was not optimized). My hardware is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and 2Gb RAM.
> > I was running X, procmail and firefox while testing (I suspect the Red Hat
> > server has none of those installed, much less running during tests). My
> > times:
> >
> > wash_at_Pegasus:~/boost/status$ time icpc -c -xc++ -O0 -g -w1 -inline-level=0
> > "/scratch/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/serialization/build/intel-
> linux-11.0/debug/xml_wgrammar.o"
> > "../libs/serialization/src/xml_wgrammar.cpp"
> >
> > real 5m54.892s
> > user 5m44.142s
> > sys 0m1.128s
> >
> > I just can't imagine the Xeon being that slow, relative to my numbers...
> I don't suppose Boost tests are being run on a dedicated machine...
> - Volodya
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Just in case anyone misses it, I posted an RFC to the Boost.Users list about this.
I think this is a good chance to discuss Spirit porting questions that may well
become relevant if somebody was to decide to port Wave to Spirit 2.x someday.

I am going to spend some time tommorow refactoring the grammar. I will try to get
it into a state where it can pass all the tests (VACPP, Intel, MSVC) in the
allocated 300 timeout on the test matrix. I still think it is good idea to consider
pulling the new grammar at this point in time, but with SVN, it is a bit painful
to do branching.

I think if I can get the following done, we should consider keeping it in trunk:

 * Reduce the number of warnings with GCC and MSVC
 * Passes tests on VACPP, Intel and MSVC

- --
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


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