Re: [boost] [1.61.0] Master branch is closed

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.61.0] Master branch is closed
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir.prus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-24 15:12:41

On 4/23/2016 8:39 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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:
>>
>> test_map_unordered_text_archive
>> test_map_unordered_text_warchive
>> test_map_unordered_xml_archive
>> test_map_unordered_xml_warchive
>> test_map_unordered_binary_archive
>>
>> test_set_unordered_text_archive
>> test_map_unordered_text_warchive
>> test_map_unordered_xml_archive
>> test_map_unordered_xml_warchive
>> test_map_unordered_binary_archive
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> test_native_array_xml_warchive
>> test_registered_xml_warchive
>> test_boost_array_xml_warchive
>> test_non_default_ctor2_xml_warchive
>> test_delete_pointer_xml_warchive
>> test_unregistered_xml_warchive
>> test_dll_simple
>
> 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:
>>
>> test_codecvt_null
>> test_array_xml_warchive
>> test_boost_array_xml_warchive
>> test_native_array_xml_warchive
>> test_binary_xml_warchive
>> test_bitset_xml_warchive
>> test_class_info_load_xml_warchive
>> test_complex_xml_warchive
>> test_contained_class_xml_warchive
>> test_cyclic_pointers_xml_warchive
>> test_delete_pointer_xml_warchive
>
> I could not get my cygwin system to build and test the serialization library.  This particular error might be addressed
> by this pending high priority fix.
>
>>
>> + lots more, all with the same failure as:
>> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/timber-cygwin-boost-bin-v2-libs-serialization-test-test_mi_xml_warchive-test-gcc-5-3-0-debug.html
>>
>
> 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.

Robert,

you commit on master includes this:

     diff --git a/test/test_z.cpp b/test/test_z.cpp
     index 2a3e56f..bd8aa34 100644
     --- a/test/test_z.cpp
     +++ b/test/test_z.cpp
     @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
     -#if 1
     +#if 0
      /////////1/////////2/////////3/////////4/////////5/////////6/////////7/////////8
      // test_optional.cpp

     @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ int test_main( int /* argc */, char* /* argv */[] )

      // EOF

     -#else
     +#elseif 0

I don't believe '#elseif' is a valid preprocessor directive. Should it be '#elif? Was this change
actually meant to be merged to master? This test file is not built by test Jamfile.

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimirprus.com