Boost Testing :
Subject: Re: [Boost-testing] [Important!] Testers.. New version of bjam, action likely required..
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-05 18:01:47
On 4/5/2010 4:49 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>> On 4/5/2010 4:09 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
>>> On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
>>>> On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>>>> I just put back the latest version of bjam, 3.1.18, used by the
>>>>>> regression testing. Because subversion is not entirely intelligent
>>>>>> it comes to doing a checkout of a new branch over an existing tree
>>>>>> will likely need to delete the "tools_bjam" directory for things to
>>> So I get the same error message about no boost-test lines encountered
>>> (see below). Looking in results/bjam.log I see loads of lines like this
>>> which clearly contain boost-test.
>>> boost-test(COMPILE_FAIL) "config/no_void_returns_fail" :
>>> boost-test(RUN) "config/no_void_returns_pass" :
>>> boost-test(COMPILE_FAIL) "config/no_wchar_t_fail" :
>>> boost-test(RUN) "config/no_wchar_t_pass" :
>>> and then the tests start running. So what I'm confused is which python
>>> file is emitting this message? I can't find where this message is coming
>>> *****Error - No "boost-test" lines encountered.
>>> Any idea who's generating this error?
>>> -- Noel
>>> Exception: Command sequence
>>> "/tmp/kbelco/boost/results" <"/tmp/kbelco/boost/results/bjam.log"']"
>>> failed with return code 256
>> It's not a Python script generating those, it's the process_jam_log.cpp
>> program. No idea why a change in the bjam version would cause it to
>> complain though.
> Okay, the problem seems to be that this compile action precedes the
> first occurrence of boost-test in the results/bjam.log file.
> -ftemplate-depth-128 -O0 -fno-inline -Wall -g -fPIC -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1
> -I".." -c -o
> ...updated 8 targets...
> Performing configuration checks
> - long_double_check builds : yes
> boost-test(RUN) "accumulators/weighted_tail_variate_means" :
> boost-test(RUN) "accumulators/weighted_tail_quantile" :
> Notice the first boost-test lines occur after the compile action
> happens. For some reason, process_jam_log.cpp seems to assume that once
> it finds any build / link action, it immediately tests the test2info map
> to see if it's empty. In this case, it's always empty since the compile
> action occurs before the first boost-test line.
> If I edit bjam.log and remove the compile action lines, process_jam_log
> runs to completion without error. Guess we need to ping the Math library
> maintainer and ask why / how they're doing this?
> Is that enough information to get a patch in place?
I think so. But how to actually change it is another story. This is a
result of a change Volodya did for supporting BB configuration. So we'll
have to see how he wants to handle it. Which mainly boils down to if we
should include those configuration results in the test results, or not.
He should be sleeping at the moment :-) So we'll see in 7 or so hours.
I know it's going to be painful for people.. But I guess I have to
change bjam back to the old version until we resolve this.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail