Re: [Boost-testing] [1.34.0]Required platforms - Intel on Windows

From: Stefan Slapeta (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-25 15:12:24

Thomas Witt wrote:
> 
> Ok, admittedly my remark was not very helpful. What I am referring to 
> was whether adding the flag changed the compiler behavior from earlier 
> test runs. If not I have no objections.
> 

I don't think so. Anyway, it's not intended to change anything but the 
toolset name.

> 
> While I agree with this in principle. This is NOT THE RIGHT TIME to make 
> changes like this. We are trying to get a release out. The list of 
> required compilers has been decided on. Messing with toolset names from 
> that point onwards is a bad idea.
> 

I didn't ask for a new required compiler.

> The question of how we distinguish between 7.1 and 8.0 based compilation 
> is not relevant for 1.34.0. We picked from the list of available 
> regression tests and that's the end of that.
> 

????
The current situation is that we have different results for the same 
toolset (better: we would have them if we didn't distinguish the VC 
version). How would you suggest to handle that without including the 
name of the base compiler into the toolset?

>>>> There are two ways to resolve this either revert the change or fix all
>>>> references in status/explicit-failures-markup.xml.
>>> Let's do the right thing.
>>>
>> - use the vc71 name for errors related to intel on vc71
>>    (I not aware of such)
>> - use the vc8 name for errors related to intel on vc8
>>    (must be at least those caused by the well-known vc8
>>     library bugs; they also occur on plain vc8 only)
>> - use wildcards for errors related to intel compiler
> 
> These questions should be resolved for the next release. Until then I 
> kindly ask you to resolve the issue in one of the possible ways ASAP.
> 
> Sorry for being rude, but every day we spend on this is a day of delay 
> for the release.
> 

Nobody wants to hold the release but for me, after having seen the 
differences between Intel on VC7 and Intel on VC8, this seems to be 
necessary.

Of course I'm looking forward to hearing better solutions.

Stefan