The fourth (and hopefully final) release candidates for the 1.65.0 release are now available at: https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.65.0/source/ [ Note: The RC1s/RC2s/RC3s are in that directory, too - make sure you get the right files! ] Changes since RC3: * Fix a bug in Boost.Thread where timed waits were waiting for a very long time. Changes since RC2: * Fix a crashing bug in Boost.ASIO * Fix a compilation error when including both <boost/math_fwd.hpp> and <boost/math/common_factor_ct.hpp> * An update to Boost.Spirit to fix compilation errors on Mac OS with -std=c++17 Changes since RC1: * An update to Boost.Config so that the flags BOOST_NO_CXX98_RANDOM_SHUFFLE and BOOST_NO_CXX98_BINDERS are now set appropriately for libc++. (This fixes the compilation errors for Boost.Test) * An update to Boost.Fiber to fix compilation errors * An update to Boost.Wave to fix compilation errors on Mac OS with -std=c++17 The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 5d255d1ff8460d52dffcf9a9b55d908ae704027a66c590ec774096effaea26c1 boost_1_65_0_rc4.7z 911602d830ea5d16483d1e565b9859d120d03f2e5176017226ef391eb9d17fc8 boost_1_65_0_rc4.tar.bz2 369e06dc787d32b0fbaae020f33d814c9e7b77263acb859776968e623035f760 boost_1_65_0_rc4.tar.gz a9c6b8346b05ea43ac4278e80036a9e956ea99fc61f0b7f55469471af2df934c boost_1_65_0_rc4.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. Thanks! -- The release managers
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The fourth (and hopefully final) release candidates for the 1.65.0 release are now available at:
[snippage] 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.
* Builds successfully with Apple Clang [Apple LLVM version 8.0.0 (clang-800.0.42.1)] with C++03/11/14/1z * Builds successfully with Clang Trunk [clang version 6.0.0 (trunk 310587)] with C++03/11/14 * Built successfully with Clang Trunk [clang version 6.0.0 (trunk 310587)] with C++1z except for Boost.Locale. -- Marshall
Le 17/08/2017 à 05:33, Marshall Clow via Boost a écrit :
The fourth (and hopefully final) release candidates for the 1.65.0 release are now available at:
https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.65.0/source/
[ Note: The RC1s/RC2s/RC3s are in that directory, too - make sure you get the right files! ]
Changes since RC3: * Fix a bug in Boost.Thread where timed waits were waiting for a very long time. Thanks for waiting and including this fix.
Vicente
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The fourth (and hopefully final) release candidates for the 1.65.0 release are now available at:
https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.65.0/source/
[ Note: The RC1s/RC2s/RC3s are in that directory, too - make sure you get the right files! ]
Changes since RC3: * Fix a bug in Boost.Thread where timed waits were waiting for a very long time.
Changes since RC2: * Fix a crashing bug in Boost.ASIO * Fix a compilation error when including both <boost/math_fwd.hpp> and <boost/math/common_factor_ct.hpp> * An update to Boost.Spirit to fix compilation errors on Mac OS with -std=c++17
Changes since RC1: * An update to Boost.Config so that the flags BOOST_NO_CXX98_RANDOM_SHUFFLE and BOOST_NO_CXX98_BINDERS are now set appropriately for libc++. (This fixes the compilation errors for Boost.Test) * An update to Boost.Fiber to fix compilation errors * An update to Boost.Wave to fix compilation errors on Mac OS with -std=c++17
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
5d255d1ff8460d52dffcf9a9b55d908ae704027a66c590ec774096effaea26c1 boost_1_65_0_rc4.7z 911602d830ea5d16483d1e565b9859d120d03f2e5176017226ef391eb9d17fc8 boost_1_65_0_rc4.tar.bz2 369e06dc787d32b0fbaae020f33d814c9e7b77263acb859776968e623035f760 boost_1_65_0_rc4.tar.gz a9c6b8346b05ea43ac4278e80036a9e956ea99fc61f0b7f55469471af2df934c boost_1_65_0_rc4.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 builds look good. toolset arch compile Link Execute msvc-8.0 32 X X X msvc-8.0 64 X X X msvc-9.0 32 X X X msvc-9.0 64 X X X 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 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 Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 17 August 2017 at 13:10, Tom Kent via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X
Could you clarify which version of the compiler this was? 1900 or 1901? (or the Visual Studio 2017 update version?)
The full versions for VS and tools is: Python 2: 2.7.13 Python 2: 2.7.13 amd64 Python 3: 3.6.0 Python 3: 3.6.0 amd64 zlib: 1.2.8 bzip2: 1.0.6 Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 - msvc-8.0 - Service Pack 1 Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 - msvc-9.0 - Service Pack 1 Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 - msvc-10.0 - Service Pack 1 Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 - msvc-11.0 - Update 4 Microsoft Visual Studio 2013 - msvc-12.0 - Update 5 Microsoft Visual Studio 2015 - msvc-14.0 - Update 3 Microsoft Visual Studio 2017 - msvc-14.1 - RTW Tom
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Olaf van der Spek via Boost Sent: Donnerstag, 17. August 2017 14:53 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 1.65.0 Release Candidate 4
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Kent via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X
Do you do any runs with /std:c++latest?
... and /permissive-? Marcel
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Marcel Raad via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Olaf van der Spek via Boost Sent: Donnerstag, 17. August 2017 14:53 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 1.65.0 Release Candidate 4
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Kent via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X
Do you do any runs with /std:c++latest?
... and /permissive-?
No and no, I run with the default, out of the box, settings. I'm confident the default settings are the most common in the wild, so that is what I build the windows binaries to target. Tom
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Tom Kent via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Marcel Raad via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Olaf van der Spek via Boost Sent: Donnerstag, 17. August 2017 14:53 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost 1.65.0 Release Candidate 4
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Tom Kent via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote: msvc-14.1 32 X X X msvc-14.1 64 X X X
Do you do any runs with /std:c++latest?
... and /permissive-?
No and no, I run with the default, out of the box, settings. I'm confident the default settings are the most common in the wild, so that is what I build the windows binaries to target.
Would it be easy to do extra runs with those settings? -- Olaf
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Marshall Clow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
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.
The fix for "Unknown compiler version - please run the configure tests and report the results" doesn't appear to be included.. -- Olaf
On 17/08/2017 14:01, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Marshall Clow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
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. The fix for "Unknown compiler version - please run the configure tests and report the results" doesn't appear to be included..
It's not, it's too late. I've just filed a PR to improve the messages and provide a way to turn them off: https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/178 --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, John Maddock via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 17/08/2017 14:01, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Marshall Clow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
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.
The fix for "Unknown compiler version - please run the configure tests and report the results" doesn't appear to be included..
It's not, it's too late.
I've just filed a PR to improve the messages and provide a way to turn them off: https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/178
Isn't it just in time for RC6? :p -- Olaf
On 18 August 2017 at 10:37, Olaf van der Spek via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, John Maddock via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
It's not, it's too late.
I've just filed a PR to improve the messages and provide a way to turn them off: https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/178
Isn't it just in time for RC6? :p
As it's just a message, not a compile error, and it's not even in develop yet, I'd say no. We can't delay forever.
Maybe it's possible to cherry-pick required changes and release 1.65.1 a bit later with full VS2017.3/clang 5.0/gcc 7.2 support? On 18 August 2017 at 12:43, Daniel James via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 18 August 2017 at 10:37, Olaf van der Spek via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, John Maddock via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
It's not, it's too late.
I've just filed a PR to improve the messages and provide a way to turn them off: https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/178
Isn't it just in time for RC6? :p
As it's just a message, not a compile error, and it's not even in develop yet, I'd say no. We can't delay forever.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Egor Pugin
On 18 August 2017 at 15:24, Egor Pugin via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Maybe it's possible to cherry-pick required changes and release 1.65.1 a bit later with full VS2017.3/clang 5.0/gcc 7.2 support?
Both clang-5.0 and VS2017.3 are major updates (no clue about GCC 7.2), getting things right certainly must be more important than just getting release 1.65 half-broken out of the door (quality over speed). I know a number of people are working over-time to make things happen ASAP, but sometimes ASAP is not the most important. A delay of a week or 2 don't make any difference. desgki -- "*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, degski via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 18 August 2017 at 15:24, Egor Pugin via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Maybe it's possible to cherry-pick required changes and release 1.65.1 a bit later with full VS2017.3/clang 5.0/gcc 7.2 support?
A delay of a week or 2 don't make any difference.
It makes a difference for some of us. As some of us are waiting for the release to happen so that we can merge fixes and improvements to master for the next release cycle. And delays mean shortened time for us to test those changes. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
On 18 August 2017 at 16:46, Rene Rivera via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
It makes a difference for some of us.
You mean "us" devs, no? What about users?
As some of us are waiting for the release to happen so that we can merge fixes and improvements to master for the next release cycle.
Relax, time's on our side! There are fixes (PR's) out there that have not been merged for years and nobody does anything about those, even though they cause plenty of people major head-aches, but, yes, those people are not part of "us". degski -- "*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798
On 18 August 2017 at 15:27, degski via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 18 August 2017 at 16:46, Rene Rivera via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
It makes a difference for some of us.
You mean "us" devs, no? What about users?
As some of us are waiting for the release to happen so that we can merge fixes and improvements to master for the next release cycle.
Relax, time's on our side!
We used to delay releases until every little thing was sorted out. And that lead to releases being heavily delayed, which is good for no one, users or developers. If we wait two weeks to fix a minor problem, then a new minor problem will crop up one week later.
There are fixes (PR's) out there that have not been merged for years and nobody does anything about those, even though they cause plenty of people major head-aches, but, yes, those people are not part of "us".
Then maybe try to get them fixed for the next release, rather than waiting until the last minute?
On 18 August 2017 at 17:53, Daniel James via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
We used to delay releases until every little thing was sorted out. And that lead to releases being heavily delayed, which is good for no one, users or developers.
Me thinks that for users, the only thing that counts is that a new release is rock-solid (i.e. at least as good as the previous one). We see plenty of people on the list that are still on, just for arguments' sake 1.47, there must be a reason for that. They (must) feel un-comfortable with newer releases and the older stuff (the releases that got delayed maybe?) just works for them (the bit they are using in any case). degski -- "*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798
On 18 August 2017 at 16:10, degski via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 18 August 2017 at 17:53, Daniel James via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
We used to delay releases until every little thing was sorted out. And that lead to releases being heavily delayed, which is good for no one, users or developers.
Me thinks that for users, the only thing that counts is that a new release is rock-solid (i.e. at least as good as the previous one). We see plenty of people on the list that are still on, just for arguments' sake 1.47, there must be a reason for that. They (must) feel un-comfortable with newer releases and the older stuff (the releases that got delayed maybe?) just works for them (the bit they are using in any case).
That's a big assumption, there are a lot of reasons to stick with older versions. And if you are using old releases, you'd be getting the exact warning that you're complaining about, and probably for earlier compilers as well. Regardless, we're not going to change our release procedure at the very last minute.
On 18 August 2017 at 18:22, Daniel James via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Regardless, we're not going to change our release procedure at the very last minute.
There does not seem to be much of a procedure from where I'm sitting. Either one just pushes the (release )button every 6 weeks (like Rust), 3 months or whatever, no matter what issues are lingering: "We''ll fix it in the next release approach", or one releases the latest product when it's ready. We seem to have a half-way house here. BUT, I'll rest my case here, life's too short and the next release is only 4 months away (pre-cluding delays). degski -- "*Ihre sogenannte Religion wirkt bloß wie ein Opiat reizend, betäubend, Schmerzen aus Schwäche stillend.*" - Novalis 1798
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Rene Rivera via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, degski via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 18 August 2017 at 15:24, Egor Pugin via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Maybe it's possible to cherry-pick required changes and release 1.65.1 a bit later with full VS2017.3/clang 5.0/gcc 7.2 support?
A delay of a week or 2 don't make any difference.
It makes a difference for some of us. As some of us are waiting for the release to happen so that we can merge fixes and improvements to master for the next release cycle. And delays mean shortened time for us to test those changes.
Just wondering, why can't those changes be tested in dev? -- Olaf
Le 17.08.17 à 05:33, Marshall Clow via Boost a écrit :
The fourth (and hopefully final) release candidates for the 1.65.0 release are now available at:
The patch I mention here https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2017/08/238131.php is not available in the RC4, so I cannot compile my projects using boost.python on VS2015/2017. Best, Raffi
On 8/16/2017 11:33 PM, Marshall Clow via Boost wrote:
The fourth (and hopefully final) release candidates for the 1.65.0 release are now available at:
https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.65.0/source/
[ Note: The RC1s/RC2s/RC3s are in that directory, too - make sure you get the right files! ]
Changes since RC3: * Fix a bug in Boost.Thread where timed waits were waiting for a very long time.
Changes since RC2: * Fix a crashing bug in Boost.ASIO * Fix a compilation error when including both <boost/math_fwd.hpp> and <boost/math/common_factor_ct.hpp> * An update to Boost.Spirit to fix compilation errors on Mac OS with -std=c++17
Changes since RC1: * An update to Boost.Config so that the flags BOOST_NO_CXX98_RANDOM_SHUFFLE and BOOST_NO_CXX98_BINDERS are now set appropriately for libc++. (This fixes the compilation errors for Boost.Test) * An update to Boost.Fiber to fix compilation errors * An update to Boost.Wave to fix compilation errors on Mac OS with -std=c++17
The SHA256 checksums are as follows:
5d255d1ff8460d52dffcf9a9b55d908ae704027a66c590ec774096effaea26c1 boost_1_65_0_rc4.7z 911602d830ea5d16483d1e565b9859d120d03f2e5176017226ef391eb9d17fc8 boost_1_65_0_rc4.tar.bz2 369e06dc787d32b0fbaae020f33d814c9e7b77263acb859776968e623035f760 boost_1_65_0_rc4.tar.gz a9c6b8346b05ea43ac4278e80036a9e956ea99fc61f0b7f55469471af2df934c boost_1_65_0_rc4.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.
Clicking the Boost Build documentation link does bring up a local page with further links of Tutorial, Documentation, and Github at the top of the page. Clicking on the Documentation link gives an error with, under Firefox, "Can't find the file at my_boost_root/tools/build/doc/html/index.html. Is it really the intention for the end-user only to have Boost Build Documentation in the distribution if he manually builds the documentation for himself ? I would at least expect that if the local documentation did not exist that Boost Build would at least redirect to the latest build of its documentation online.
Thanks!
-- The release managers
participants (13)
-
Daniel James -
degski -
Edward Diener -
Egor Pugin -
John Maddock -
Klaim - Joël Lamotte -
Marcel Raad -
Marshall Clow -
Olaf van der Spek -
Raffi Enficiaud -
Rene Rivera -
Tom Kent -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba