Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
All of the *_fail tests that are failing should be cleared. Actually I don't know about bcc-5.6.4 since I don't have that compiler, but I expect the conditions are the same as for bcc-5.5.1. >> 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. It's a strange standard to hold boost libraries to, passing on toolsets which are not checked into the Boost CVS. Can we do something about that? >> 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 That's good to know. Is there a link on the main summary page? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
