David Abrahams wrote: > >> As far as I know the CVS is in very good health at the moment. > > > > Uhmm, I really wouldn't say so! If you look at the main trunk report - > > http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/resources/cvs_main_trunk/developer_summary_page.html, > > there are lots of regressions comparing to 1.30.0, and IMO we ought to > > fix all these before we branch for the release or anything. > > I can't really tell what these represent.
As usual, a red cell means a regression from the 1.30.0 tarball, a dark green one - an improvement. > All of the new iterator library tests which weren't in 1.30.0 are > showing up as regressions if they're failing. Yes, it's a known shortcoming - or a feature, depending of how you look at it. By default, new tests are expected to pass. > Many are simply not going to get better; they're due to compiler bugs > which can't be worked around. Which is totally fine. If you provide us with the list of expected failures, these will be cleared. > As for the others, the failures you're reporting with intel-7.1 are > very strange; my 7.1 compiler doesn't have these problems AFAIK. Hmm, looks like another configuration problem to me. We'll take a look at it. > What does the "meta-" prefix mean? "meta-" is our prefix for non-boost toolsets. > Do you have some special configuration of each of these compilers? Well, most of them are not really special. For instance, bcc-* ones were introduced for the only purpose of being able to test 5.5.1 and 5.5.4 compilers simultaneously. The complete list of differences is available here - http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/resources/cs-win32_rc_1_30_0_metacomm/patches.html Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost