Subject: Re: [boost] [1.61.0] Master branch is closed
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-23 13:39:07
On 4/22/16 11:11 AM, John Maddock wrote:
>> I'm willing to do whatever is most convenient for you guys. Ideally
>> I'd like to see at least a few test results on develop, merge to
>> master and see at least a few results there.
> Running tests locally, msvc-14, 12 and 11 all pass. With msvc-10 there
> are 10 failures, but 7 shown on the test matrix, current failures are:
> These all look to be the "same" failure though, so I'm not sure why some
> of these seem to pass in the test matrix?
I'm aware of this. But it seems specific to msvc 10 which I don't have.
I presume that this will require some workaround for some problem in the
msvc 10 standard library implementation. I consider it low priority.
> GCC-5.3.0 mingw failures:
On the test matrix, the serialization library fails with all compilers
on the mingw platform. I've asked about this on the build list a couple
of times and gotten no response. It's low priority.
> GCC 5.3.0 C++14 mode:
I could not get my cygwin system to build and test the serialization
library. This particular error might be addressed by this pending high
> + lots more, all with the same failure as:
same as above.
> Intel 16 win:
> Almost everything fails with linker errors.
Hmm - the current develop test matrix only shows a couple of errors.
All are linker errors apparently related to one function which is only
used in a couple of cases. Again - low priority.
I have this one fix. It means that all xml output has an invalid ending
tag on all tests/platforms etc. I consider this as super high priority
as anyone who were to use the library would be generating invalid xml
files and sometimes storing them indefinitely. I'd rather not imagine
what the repercussions of this might be. I'd rather not.
The other issues are corner cases on specific configurations. I always
have this. I strive to diminish them every release. In this round, I
made the tests for output of non-ascii characters more stringent and
implemented limited visibilty for gcc/clang compilers. This generated a
large number of new test failures. This not an indicator of declining
quality or regressions, but rather a side effect of insisting on a
higher quality product. I recognize that I can't make a perfect
product. I strive to make each version better than the previous one.
In any case, given that I haven't received any new information, I'll
merge the change from develop into master.
> Let me know if there's anything I can do.
I appreciate your help.
> HTH, John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk