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:
>> 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 priority fix.
>> + 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.
you commit on master includes this:
diff --git a/test/test_z.cpp b/test/test_z.cpp
index 2a3e56f..bd8aa34 100644
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ int test_main( int /* argc */, char* /* argv */ )
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk