Boost Testing :
From: Paul Baxter (pauljbaxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-09 18:28:11
"Stefan Slapeta" <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> John Maddock wrote:
>> What's the difference between the pjb intel-win32 test results and those
>> from sslapeta? The latter are passing all the regex tests, the former
>> are not.
> Generally, I would like to know a little bit more about "pbj". Who are
> you, what is your platform, ...? There is a nice place for such
> information, named "comment.html".
Accompanying my last set of regression test results I posted details of my
setup to this list.
I'm sorry I didn't know about comment.html (documented somewhere?) which is
why I posted some details to the thread.
for who I am, and http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing/870
for the latest setup.)
At the advice of Jeff Garland I updated to latest icc and changed from doing
a default debug build [with v8.1.025 on early morning 3 May] to a release
build [8.1.027 later that same day]. All running on WinXP pro (32 bit), AMD
I also have a new redhat4 x86_64 setup (P4 3.6 GHz) which I plan to use when
I figure out how to get it to download the tests from cvs without the
dreaded 'cvs lock held by ....'. This can also occasionally run some Intel
for windows tests if you identify another useful configuration.
I believe Stefan runs a debug build hence my change to release.
A long time ago I recommended the author of regex should take a look at
www.boost.org and the rest, to John's credit, is history.
As I have explained before, I am only a user and occasional tester but would
welcome the chance to help in running the tests. I don't want to confuse the
regression testing with my ad hoc results so I'd be happy to stop posting if
needed. I tend to run the full tests as I've been caught by stale results in
the past and although I don't run these regularly, if someone wants a test
repeated I'll usually be able to do it within a day or so. (Private email
request is OK)
I made the suggestion before that if you want the variety of testing on many
setups, perhaps you could provide a user set of results separate from the
core largely automatic set of results. I certainly don't want to confuse