Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-27 13:16:48

Stefan Slapeta wrote:
> Thomas Witt wrote:
> I don't think so. Anyway, it's not intended to change anything but the
> toolset name.

I was clear on the intent, but concerned about the effect. Anyway if it
only changes the toolset name that is not an issue anymore.

> I didn't ask for a new required compiler.

No, but you changed the toolset name for a required platform and that is
a problem.

>> 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?

Well the reason for this is that someone started tp provide test results
for the branch that created a name clash. This is the root cause of the
problem. We were fine before that. It all boils down to the fact that we
need stability in testing to get a release out.

>>>>> 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.

I am not opposed to the toolset rename but in this case please fix
explicit-failures-markup.xml ASAP.



Thomas Witt

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at