From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-25 17:06:24
Rene Rivera wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>> Jürgen Hunold wrote:
>> Not sure what (..) part you're referring to, but if I execute "g++ -v"
>> from cygwin, this is what I get:
> It's usually the last part of the output when doing "g++ --version".
>> gcc version 3.4.4 (cygming special) (gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125)
> Which I think in the "-v" it's the "(cygming special)".
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special) (gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125)
I'm also not wild for the idea having a specially tagged "known good"
BBv2. What's on HEAD should be "known good," and HEAD should be what the
nightly regression tests are testing. A more comprehensive BBv2
regression test is all that should be needed, IMO. A few people were
broken by these changes. Their configurations should be captured in test
cases so the bugs don't creep back in.
If the BBv2 regression test cannot be made comprehensive enough, I'd
rather see an experimental branch for toolset changes that some on this
list (myself included) sync to. That branch gets merged into HEAD
periodically if none of us guinea pigs have complained.
But that's a poor substitute for a good set of BBv2 regression tests.
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk