Geometry Boost List: Re: [geometry] Status report

Subject: Re: [geometry] Status report
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-03 14:16:24

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote
> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Last year, I generated modified version of the support_status report:
>> https://gist.github.com/mloskot/5821937
>>
>> I've just generated the new reports against the current master:
>> https://gist.github.com/mloskot/993c38232c88675488e8
>>
>> Apart from the great progress, I noticed there seem to be a regression
>> (?)
>> regarding the disjoint algorithm.
>>
>> The disjoint support used to have 100% coverage, but now there are gaps
>> for some of the combinations.
>>
>> How to interpret it?
> 
> Are you sure that disjoint had 100% coverage in the past?

No, I'm not, hence my question.

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote
> Which version of Boost do you have in mind?

The old report was generated in June 2013, so it is close to 1.54.

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote
> Is this assessment based on real usage of the library or just on the 
> analysis of the results of the support_status program?

Just the support_status.

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote
> In the older versions (pre 1.56), instead of failing in the dispatched 
> algorithm as it should it failed in some other algorithm e.g. 
> for_each_xxx, sectionalize, etc. This is probably why it wasn't detected 
> by the support_status since it only checks if the dispatched algorithm 
> is derived from not_implemented<> and in the older versions (pre 1.56) 
> it wasn't. So now it fails to compile in a "right" way.

It makes sense.

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote
> Though indeed this change could cause a regression. However we can't say 
> that after the analysis of the support_status results since it gave 
> invalid results for older versions of the library.

Right. That's good to confirm the old support_status report can be
disregard.

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote
> I only checked the Pt/Mpt combination. It's probable that for other
> combinations those 
> internal algorithms failing e.g. for Pt/Mpt compiled before. So this 
> indeed would be a regression. Do you know about such case?

No, I don't, not yet.
I just did a quick support_status run (using my modified
text_outputter.hpp).

Anyway, good to have the support_status double-checked.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz  Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
-----
-- 
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
--
View this message in context: http://boost-geometry.203548.n3.nabble.com/Status-report-tp4026237p4026239.html
Sent from the Boost Geometry mailing list archive at Nabble.com.