[release] Boost 1.71.0 Release Candidate 1
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 7fadf835372325d7a287b1c45310c4f96811eb1e4809933a5a400d529df38d0e boost_1_71_0_rc1.7z c857a86fb1223c7a256414151e2d1dcd4691b56197aa1329e087e92502191434 boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.bz2 07c07cad079fed3f0175cbd7097740a333c2cdc6c899ac433dea87d1224d726d boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.gz bc1674ba3e11635fc2effbddc2ed69aecaced3901f81a6a2aae7b77f34e4cf76 boost_1_71_0_rc1.zip As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:44, Michael Caisse via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/> Please report (...) anything else that is noteworthy.
Page libs/libraries.htm lists "Geometry Extensions" leading to libs/geometry/extensions/index.html which is missing. I don't know if that "Geometry Extensions" should be updated or removed, but I'm raising this issue for Adam or Barend who may know better. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:44, Michael Caisse via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at: <https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/> [...] As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
Despite my attempts [1] & [2] to figure out what is going wrong that prevents GIL docs from being generated. The local `cd libs/gil && b2 doc` workflow is fine - first doxygen generates files in doc/html - then, sphinx-build generates files in doc/html for both, master and develop. Is it possible that this GIL top-level Jamfile in master https://github.com/boostorg/gil/blob/master/Jamfile with C++11 checks is the troublemaker here? i.e. the checks fail on the machine where the Boost docs aregenerated In GIL develop, after an advisory round from Peter and Rene, I have removed moved the big-fat content from the top-level Jamfile to test/Jamfile, here is the change https://github.com/boostorg/gil/commit/4ed7701b47764edf327e7c82f65cf9815026b... How do I know if that is the issue? If it is, then shall I cherry-picl this restructuring commit into master? https://github.com/boostorg/gil/commit/4ed7701b47764edf327e7c82f65cf9815026b... [1] https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2019/07/246658.php [2] https://github.com/boostorg/gil/issues/351 Best regards -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:43 PM Michael Caisse via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
7fadf835372325d7a287b1c45310c4f96811eb1e4809933a5a400d529df38d0e boost_1_71_0_rc1.7z
c857a86fb1223c7a256414151e2d1dcd4691b56197aa1329e087e92502191434 boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.bz2
07c07cad079fed3f0175cbd7097740a333c2cdc6c899ac433dea87d1224d726d boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.gz
bc1674ba3e11635fc2effbddc2ed69aecaced3901f81a6a2aae7b77f34e4cf76 boost_1_71_0_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
Windows/Visual Studio (2010 - 2019) builds look good. Full build logs can be found here: https://gist.github.com/teeks99/12c21a6ea7c7d2e06b53cc9aaa8185e7 toolset arch compile Link Execute msvc-10.0 32 X X X msvc-10.0 64 X X X msvc-11.0 32 X X X msvc-11.0 64 X X X msvc-12.0 32 X X X msvc-12.0 64 X X X msvc-14.0 32 X X X msvc-14.0 64 X X X msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X msvc-14.2 32 X X X msvc-14.2 64 X X X Compile means that the b2 command completed without errors Link means that visual studio was able to link a sample executable to a library (libboost_thread-vcXXX-mt[-gd]-1_XX.lib) generated Execute means that the linked program executed without errors. Tom
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM Michael Caisse via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
7fadf835372325d7a287b1c45310c4f96811eb1e4809933a5a400d529df38d0e boost_1_71_0_rc1.7z
c857a86fb1223c7a256414151e2d1dcd4691b56197aa1329e087e92502191434 boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.bz2
07c07cad079fed3f0175cbd7097740a333c2cdc6c899ac433dea87d1224d726d boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.gz
bc1674ba3e11635fc2effbddc2ed69aecaced3901f81a6a2aae7b77f34e4cf76 boost_1_71_0_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I was able to build the libraries successfully with the following configurations: Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03/11/14/17/2a Mac OS X 10.14.6, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a Ubuntu 18.14, gcc 8.3.2: c++03/11/14/1z Ubuntu 18.14, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a I should have some more test results later tonight, but the following libraries failed many tests on "Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03": Boost.VMD Boost.numeric/ublas (lots of constexpr, and other non-c++03 stuff) Boost.Process - lots of non-c++03 stuff -- Marshall
On 8/9/2019 10:10 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM Michael Caisse via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
7fadf835372325d7a287b1c45310c4f96811eb1e4809933a5a400d529df38d0e boost_1_71_0_rc1.7z
c857a86fb1223c7a256414151e2d1dcd4691b56197aa1329e087e92502191434 boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.bz2
07c07cad079fed3f0175cbd7097740a333c2cdc6c899ac433dea87d1224d726d boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.gz
bc1674ba3e11635fc2effbddc2ed69aecaced3901f81a6a2aae7b77f34e4cf76 boost_1_71_0_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I was able to build the libraries successfully with the following configurations:
Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03/11/14/17/2a Mac OS X 10.14.6, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a Ubuntu 18.14, gcc 8.3.2: c++03/11/14/1z Ubuntu 18.14, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a
I should have some more test results later tonight, but the following libraries failed many tests on "Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03": Boost.VMD Boost.numeric/ublas (lots of constexpr, and other non-c++03 stuff) Boost.Process - lots of non-c++03 stuff
VMD needs variadic macro support, which for a very few compiler implementations means C++11 or higher, or else it fails a test when compiled at the C++03 level.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 4:05 AM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 8/9/2019 10:10 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM Michael Caisse via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
7fadf835372325d7a287b1c45310c4f96811eb1e4809933a5a400d529df38d0e boost_1_71_0_rc1.7z
c857a86fb1223c7a256414151e2d1dcd4691b56197aa1329e087e92502191434 boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.bz2
07c07cad079fed3f0175cbd7097740a333c2cdc6c899ac433dea87d1224d726d boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.gz
bc1674ba3e11635fc2effbddc2ed69aecaced3901f81a6a2aae7b77f34e4cf76 boost_1_71_0_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I was able to build the libraries successfully with the following configurations:
Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03/11/14/17/2a Mac OS X 10.14.6, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a Ubuntu 18.14, gcc 8.3.2: c++03/11/14/1z Ubuntu 18.14, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a
I should have some more test results later tonight, but the following libraries failed many tests on "Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03": Boost.VMD Boost.numeric/ublas (lots of constexpr, and other non-c++03 stuff) Boost.Process - lots of non-c++03 stuff
VMD needs variadic macro support, which for a very few compiler implementations means C++11 or higher, or else it fails a test when compiled at the C++03 level.
Shouldn't those tests be marked as requiring C++11, then? -- Marshall
On 8/10/2019 10:35 AM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 4:05 AM Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 8/9/2019 10:10 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:44 AM Michael Caisse via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The first release candidates for the 1.71.0 release are now available at:
<https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.71.0.rc1/source/>
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
7fadf835372325d7a287b1c45310c4f96811eb1e4809933a5a400d529df38d0e boost_1_71_0_rc1.7z
c857a86fb1223c7a256414151e2d1dcd4691b56197aa1329e087e92502191434 boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.bz2
07c07cad079fed3f0175cbd7097740a333c2cdc6c899ac433dea87d1224d726d boost_1_71_0_rc1.tar.gz
bc1674ba3e11635fc2effbddc2ed69aecaced3901f81a6a2aae7b77f34e4cf76 boost_1_71_0_rc1.zip
As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy.
I was able to build the libraries successfully with the following configurations:
Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03/11/14/17/2a Mac OS X 10.14.6, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a Ubuntu 18.14, gcc 8.3.2: c++03/11/14/1z Ubuntu 18.14, clang-trunk: c++03/11/14/17/2a
I should have some more test results later tonight, but the following libraries failed many tests on "Mac OS X 10.14.6, apple-clang 10.01: c++03": Boost.VMD Boost.numeric/ublas (lots of constexpr, and other non-c++03 stuff) Boost.Process - lots of non-c++03 stuff
VMD needs variadic macro support, which for a very few compiler implementations means C++11 or higher, or else it fails a test when compiled at the C++03 level.
Shouldn't those tests be marked as requiring C++11, then?
Most compilers supported variadic macros before the C++11 standard was created. Therefore the tests should not be marked as requiring C++11 any more than the library itself requires C++11. The actual code determining variadic macro support for a compiler implementation, from Paul Mensonides and tweaked only slightly by me as the maintainer, is in the Boost PP config.hpp header file, and is pretty conservative. If you find a compiler/version which supports variadic macros, but which Boost PP/VMD configures as not supporting variadic macros please create a Boost PP or Boost VMD issue or PR.
participants (5)
-
Edward Diener -
Marshall Clow -
Mateusz Loskot -
Michael Caisse -
Tom Kent