On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Peter Dimov
Steven Watanabe wrote:
Are the testers using incremental builds?
I don't think so. This run, for example:
http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/teeks99-02e-...
is apparently using an old version of shared_count.hpp, and there's no yellow i.
Sorry I haven't responded to this sooner...I should probably have thrown my $0.02 since I seem to be the regression runner people are seeing this on. There are a couple things at work here. Linux runners: All the teeks99 runners with the same number are actually on the same (virtual) machine, they get run sequentially (each with a different letter after the number). To save disk space, I have one copy of the git repo that I copy into the directory (you can't do a local git clone with submodules!) for that runner just before kicking off the run.py script. As of last week, I had accidentally left a copy of the headers inside that copy of the repo, so it got copied with it. I would have expected it to be brought up to date each time, but that wasn't happening. Late last week, I deleted the copy of the headers from the repo I was copying (on all three machines teeks99-03 -04 -05) everything looks like it is working fine (it forced the headers to be generated each time). tldr; We need to investigate why the headers aren't being correctly re-generated. Windows runners: Here each runner has its own repo, so nothing was being copied in. It seemed that there was the same problem, headers that should have been re-generated weren't being re-generated. To try to force the re-generation, I added a line to my script to delete the headers before starting each run. This caused immediate failures everywhere (on teeks99-01...which is where I tried this first). Apparently, since I first generated them the code had changed over to using junctions, which weren't working for some reason with the test code. As of yesterday, things were looking better, (someone fixed the junction problem?) so I pushed this fix out to my 2nd windows machine (teeks99-02). However, this morning, I see that -01 is failing again with the same problem, so I expect to see that spread to -02 soon. This appears to be related to the "Tests failing, missing user.hpp" thread [http://lists.boost.org/boost-testing/2014/02/7561.php]. Tom