[Report] 2 regressions on RC_1_34_0 (2007-04-14)
Boost Regression test failures Report time: 2007-04-13T23:33:32Z This report lists all regression test failures on release platforms. Detailed report: http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_34_0/developer/is... 2 failures in 2 libraries serialization (1) utility (1) |serialization| test_split_binary_archive_dll: msvc-8.0 |utility| none_test: borland-5.8.2
Douglas Gregor wrote:
|utility| none_test: borland-5.8.2
This appears to be releated to none.hpp changes, see http://tinyurl.com/yqta5d. What do we do about this? - Volodya
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote in message news:E1Hcko5-0001yn-4W@zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su...
Douglas Gregor wrote:
|utility| none_test: borland-5.8.2
This appears to be releated to none.hpp changes, see http://tinyurl.com/yqta5d. What do we do about this?
This is the NEW test for "boost::none" that I added in the last commit (which btw passes all other platforms) The purpose of the test is to make sure that the expression "none" doesn't convert to an integral type. And this failure does not come from such a conversion. What happens is that "none" also refuses to convert to optional here (or so, the compiler output isn't in English so I had to guess from the code fragments in the message). However, the testsuite for Boost.Optional, for this compiler, passes the tests that involve "none", so is not that "none" 0doesn't work. I'm not sure why it fails in *this* (new) test (and I don't have the compiler to check for myself). I suspect that the problem is that the reciever function takes the argument by const reference, so it requires a temporary. But this is not strictly neccessary for testing purposes, so I'll change it. Best Fernando Cacciola
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote in message news:E1Hcko5-0001yn-4W@zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su...
Douglas Gregor wrote:
|utility| none_test: borland-5.8.2 This appears to be releated to none.hpp changes, see http://tinyurl.com/yqta5d. What do we do about this?
This is the NEW test for "boost::none" that I added in the last commit (which btw passes all other platforms)
Can you then please mark the failure as expected in the 1_34_0 branch ? No matter the actual cause, it's *not* a regression and there is really no point looking into any additional fixes at this time. Thanks, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Thomas Witt wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Can you then please mark the failure as expected in the 1_34_0 branch ? No matter the actual cause, it's *not* a regression and there is really no point looking into any additional fixes at this time.
Agreed.
Indeed. I just marked it. Even if I decide to "fix the test", I can do it after the release since it won't change the actual release content. Fernando
Fernando Cacciola <fernando_cacciola <at> hotmail.com> writes:
Thomas Witt wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Can you then please mark the failure as expected in the 1_34_0 branch ? No matter the actual cause, it's *not* a regression and there is really no point looking into any additional fixes at this time.
Agreed.
Indeed. I just marked it.
Even if I decide to "fix the test", I can do it after the release since it won't change the actual release content.
Fernando, seems like these two new errors http://tinyurl.com/2hg96q http://tinyurl.com/yujpdk are a manifestation of the same problem; if so, you might want to mark them as expected failures. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz wrote:
Fernando Cacciola <fernando_cacciola <at> hotmail.com> writes:
Thomas Witt wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Can you then please mark the failure as expected in the 1_34_0 branch ? No matter the actual cause, it's *not* a regression and there is really no point looking into any additional fixes at this time.
Agreed.
Indeed. I just marked it.
Even if I decide to "fix the test", I can do it after the release since it won't change the actual release content.
Fernando, seems like these two new errors
Indeed.
http://tinyurl.com/2hg96q http://tinyurl.com/yujpdk
are a manifestation of the same problem; if so, you might want to mark them as expected failures.
Right. I just marked them. Thanks Fernando
participants (6)
-
Douglas Gregor -
Fernando Cacciola -
Joaquin M Lopez Munoz -
Stefan Seefeld -
Thomas Witt -
Vladimir Prus