Boost regression notification (2005-12-02 [RC_1_33_0])

Boost regression test failures ------------------------------ Report time: 2005-12-02T15:12:13Z This report lists all regression test failures on release platforms. Detailed report: http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/developer/is... 11 failures in 3 libraries: serialization (2) spirit (8) wave (1) |serialization| test_non_default_ctor_binary_archive: gcc-4_0-darwin test_shared_ptr_132_binary_archive_dll: intel-8.1-linux |spirit| switch_problem: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_problem_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_eps_default: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_eps_default_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_general_def: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_general_def_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_wo_default: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_wo_default_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux |wave| testwave: gcc-3.3.6-linux

On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
Boost regression test failures ------------------------------ Report time: 2005-12-02T15:12:13Z
This report lists all regression test failures on release platforms.
Detailed report:
http://engineering.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/CVS-RC_1_33_0/ developer/issues.html
11 failures in 3 libraries: serialization (2) spirit (8) wave (1)
|serialization| test_non_default_ctor_binary_archive: gcc-4_0-darwin test_shared_ptr_132_binary_archive_dll: intel-8.1-linux
Uh oh. Anyone have any ideas? I didn't think anything actually changed in the Serialization lib...
|spirit| switch_problem: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_problem_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_eps_default: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_eps_default_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_general_def: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_general_def_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_wo_default: gcc-4.0.2-linux switch_tests_wo_default_debug: gcc-4.0.2-linux
These are fixed.
|wave| testwave: gcc-3.3.6-linux
Random segfault. This is a little worrisome... Doug

Doug Gregor wrote:
|wave| testwave: gcc-3.3.6-linux
Random segfault. This is a little worrisome...
That's a problem which occurs from time to time during memory clean up on gcc 3.2.x and gcc 3.3.x systems. But it's not exactly what I would call reproducible :-P. For instance I'm not able to get this behaviour for gcc-3.2.x/cygwin. I've disabled this platform for this release. Regards Hartmut
participants (3)
-
Doug Gregor
-
Douglas Gregor
-
Hartmut Kaiser