"Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > The page is: http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-Linux.html >> >> > So it should correspond to the HEAD revision. >> >> > IIUC, the HEAD revision contains Jen's broken patch, so this one should fail. >> >> >> >> I am only concerned with RC_1_30_0 here. >> >> >> > I see. >> > >> >> > I think that the correct patch is to revert Jens' fix. >> >> > (go back to revision 1.9). >> >> > >> >> > Can you and others run a quick test to see if this fix is correct? >> >> >> >> RC_1_30_0 already works with GCC-3.2 work for me. >> >> >> > I see. >> > I wonder what would happen with gcc3.3 and 3.3.1 without Jen's patch. >> > Should I revert that anyway, even if it leaves those compilers unsupported? >> >> Are they healthier without the patch or with it? > > without it. > >>Can you use >> BOOST_WORKAROUND to select the best answer for all GCC versions? >> > Yes, I think. > Though I cannot test it myself. > > How do I apply the patch? > I mean, what do I do with CVS to have it on the right branch/tag. > (I guess that if I just commit it, it won't end on the right place)
cvs update -rRC_1_30_0 <filenames>... cvs edit <filenames>... [Make your changes] cvs commit <filenames>... # to get back to the main trunk: cvs update -A <filenames>... I have fixed the last regression (the one with crc_test) in CVS, so as soon as you've made your patch and we've had one more round of testing, I'm going to tag it for release. Please let me know the instant you're finished. Thanks, Dave -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
