Re: [boost] Strange libstdc++ versions in travis-ci testers

Subject: Re: [boost] Strange libstdc++ versions in travis-ci testers
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-06-28 19:42:55

2018-06-28 21:27 GMT+02:00 Stefan Seefeld via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

>
>
> On 2018-06-28 03:14 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>> Maybe someone could help me understand the configuration on the travis-ci
>> testers.
>>
>
> For avoidance of doubt: what exactly are you referring to by "the
> travis-ci testers" ? Lots of Boost projects use their own CI configuration,
> so there is a huge variance on compilers and runtimes being used, some
> supporting C++11, some not.
>

This is interesting. I am referring to Boost.Opitonal tests on Travis
configured here: https://travis-ci.org/boostorg/optional
I am a maintainer of Boost.Optional, and I never configured these tests.
They were not there a year ago, and at some point I started receiving test
results from this site upon every commit. So I assume there must have been
a Boost-wide initiative to put additional tests there. I assume that
someone on the list might have taken part in configuring them, and may know
the answers.

>   Whenever I push a new commit I get a number of failures from
>> travis-ci about missing std::is_trivially_default_constructible from the
>> standard library; like here:
>> https://travis-ci.org/boostorg/optional/builds/397519342?
>> utm_source=email&utm_medium=notification
>>
>> Some tests with Boost.Predef indicate that they are clang compiler 3.X,
>> and
>> clang 5 with libstdc++ of strange version nubers: macro BOOST_LIB_STD_GNU
>> gives values 450400026 and 460700026, which would correspond to releases
>> 2015-04-26 and 2016-07-26, but when I look at the release notes for GCC
>> there are no releases mentioned of these dates:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/news.html
>>
>> Maybe someone knows what versions of libstdc++  these are? Or maybe I am
>> missing something obvious?
>>
>
> In case of doubt, you should at least add -std=c++11. It's been the
> default with recent g++ versions, but not with older ones. Likewise with
> clang.
>

I am not sure what you mean here. The library should be prepared for every
configuration of compiler/standard-library, so I do not mind testing for
C++03. My usage of std::is_trivially_default_constructible is #ifdef-ed
with (__cplusplus >= 201103L).

Regards,
&rzej;

>
> Stefan
>
> --
>
>       ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
> /listinfo.cgi/boost
>