Boost Testing :
From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-03 16:16:13
David Abrahams wrote:
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel,gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing as well.
> [folowups to testing]
> Thomas Witt <witt_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>Thomas Witt <witt_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>The following libraries show fails across almost all platforms in the
>>>>1.34 regression tests
>>>>I would be thankful for a short update on the reason and plans for
>>>As far as I can tell from
>>>the Python failures are all due to configuration problems on the part
>>>of the tester, or bugs in BBv2 -- they just have that smell about
>>Could you work with the testers to solve this issue?
> I'll give it a shot. what about it, people?
> Doug and Volodya: http://tinyurl.com/qwz7n and
> http://tinyurl.com/nv8by seem to indicate that the Python libraries
> aren't in the regular paths. Is that correct? In principle that
> should be okay; it's an indication that BBv2 isn't correctly
> propagating all the library's usage requirements to the executable.
> But your runs with earlier GCC versions are all working, which seems
> to indicate some other kind of problem. I'm without a clue here.
> Martin: I get lots of "page not found!" results for your Python
> failures. Do you have any insight into what causes that?
Sorry, not the slightest idea :(
It's the process at meta-comm that creates the tables with links to
I checked the back_reference test for gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64.
The test directory contains (timestamps are in UTC+0200):
-rw-r--r-- 1 m m 33 May 3 07:44 back_reference
-rw-r--r-- 1 m m 1384408 May 3 07:44 back_reference.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 m m 33 May 3 07:44 back_reference.output
-rw-r--r-- 1 m m 7 May 3 07:44 back_reference.test
-rwxr-xr-x 1 m m 1065301 May 3 07:44 back_reference_ext.so
-rw-r--r-- 1 m m 1634 May 3 11:48 test_log.xml
EXIT STATUS: 0
test_log.xml (1.5KB) is attached to this message.
It looks like the test actually passed. That would at least explain why
there isn't any failure page for it. I don't understand why the result
tables display a "fail*".
I also don't understand why this doesn't happen to the OSL2 results.
I ran only a single cycle on x86_64 today and the table indicates that
the results of that cycle get shown.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com