David Abrahams writes:
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
David Abrahams writes:
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> writes:
Should we mark Boost.Python as unusable with gcc 2.95.3/Intel 7.1-8.0 on Linux? The number of failures for these looks unhealthy -- http://tinyurl.com/5z3hy.
Well, no, we should fix whatever is causing the regressions.
What regressions are you referring to? Everything besides "data_members" has been failing in 1.31 as well. I was talking about green/yellow failures -- about 1/3 of the tests fail; is the library still usable in this state?
Oh, I understand.
The problems with gcc-2 only occur when C++ exceptions are thrown and the framework catches them, which happens quite often in those tests. So technically gcc-2 is usable if you're careful.
OK. Does that imply that somebody is going to look into fixing "data_members" regression with gcc-2.95.3-linux* (http://tinyurl.com/5p9jz)?
As for Intel, it certainly used to work at some point, and I'm pretty sure LBL is using it successfully. My guess is that it's a linking problem that we can correct.
But as far as I can tell from the link you posted, only Intel 8.0 is having a problem.
And, judging from the Martin's 1.31 results XML, it's not a regression either.
I understand. If we can't fix the supposed linking problem I think we should mark it unusable.
OK. Martin, could you please upload your latest regression's bjam log to our FTP? -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering