One of the actions we can take to ease releases is to fix regressions as they occur, rather than waiting until just before the next release. I'm experimenting with some new reports that combine platforms, report regressions only, and make other improvements suggested by various people. Those experiments will take a while because I'm learning xslt in the process, and have some other commitments. In the meantime, I've changed the Win32 table (http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32.html) to show diffs against February 3rd rather than just the prior day's run. Looking at the results, there is lots of good news. Tests now passing, warnings removed, etc. But there are also regressions in a number of libraries: Date-Time - Borland regressions, one VC++ 7.0 regression. Graph - Borland, Metrowerks, VC++ 6.0, one regression each. Interval - Borland, VC++ 6.0, and VC++ 7.0 regressions. Random random-test - Regression on GCC 3.3.1. Regex concept_check - Regression on VC++ 6.0. Test test_tools_test - Regressions on VC++ 6.0 and 7.0. Hopefully the developers will take a look at these soon so the regressions don't hang around until the next release. Thanks, --Beman
Le lun 01/03/2004 à 16:58, Beman Dawes a écrit :
Looking at the results, there is lots of good news. Tests now passing, warnings removed, etc. But there are also regressions in a number of libraries:
Interval - Borland, VC++ 6.0, and VC++ 7.0 regressions.
I already reported these failures to the list two weeks ago so that anybody interested could take a look. There were no answer so the library has been marked as unusable with these compilers in the status/explicit-failures-markup.xml. It doesn't appear in your regression logs; but in Metacomm's summaries it appears clearly.
Hopefully the developers will take a look at these soon so the regressions don't hang around until the next release.
I don't intend to fix them. The library doesn't use any complex C++ construction (even Borland 5.5 is able to compile it), I'm not fond of trying to workaround any strange bug a compiler may have. Regards, Guillaume
Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond@ens-lyon.fr> writes:
Le lun 01/03/2004 à 16:58, Beman Dawes a écrit :
Looking at the results, there is lots of good news. Tests now passing, warnings removed, etc. But there are also regressions in a number of libraries:
Interval - Borland, VC++ 6.0, and VC++ 7.0 regressions.
I already reported these failures to the list two weeks ago so that anybody interested could take a look. There were no answer so the library has been marked as unusable with these compilers in the status/explicit-failures-markup.xml. It doesn't appear in your regression logs; but in Metacomm's summaries it appears clearly.
Hopefully the developers will take a look at these soon so the regressions don't hang around until the next release.
I don't intend to fix them. The library doesn't use any complex C++ construction (even Borland 5.5 is able to compile it)
Read above again. Borland is listed as failing. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Le lun 01/03/2004 à 18:11, David Abrahams a écrit :
Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond@ens-lyon.fr> writes:
Le lun 01/03/2004 à 16:58, Beman Dawes a écrit :
Looking at the results, there is lots of good news. Tests now passing, warnings removed, etc. But there are also regressions in a number of libraries:
Interval - Borland, VC++ 6.0, and VC++ 7.0 regressions.
I already reported these failures to the list two weeks ago so that anybody interested could take a look. There were no answer so the library has been marked as unusable with these compilers in the status/explicit-failures-markup.xml. It doesn't appear in your regression logs; but in Metacomm's summaries it appears clearly.
Hopefully the developers will take a look at these soon so the regressions don't hang around until the next release.
I don't intend to fix them. The library doesn't use any complex C++ construction (even Borland 5.5 is able to compile it)
Read above again. Borland is listed as failing.
Read above again. It's Borland 5.6.4 that fails, not Borland 5.5.1 (according to Beman's and Metacomm's regression logs). So as I said, even Borland 5.5 is able to compile it. Regards, Guillaume
Guillaume Melquiond <guillaume.melquiond@ens-lyon.fr> writes:
Le lun 01/03/2004 à 16:58, Beman Dawes a écrit :
Looking at the results, there is lots of good news. Tests now passing, warnings removed, etc. But there are also regressions in a number of libraries:
Interval - Borland, VC++ 6.0, and VC++ 7.0 regressions.
I already reported these failures to the list two weeks ago so that anybody interested could take a look. There were no answer so the library has been marked as unusable with these compilers in the status/explicit-failures-markup.xml. It doesn't appear in your regression logs; but in Metacomm's summaries it appears clearly.
Hopefully the developers will take a look at these soon so the regressions don't hang around until the next release.
I don't intend to fix them. The library doesn't use any complex C++ construction (even Borland 5.5 is able to compile it), I'm not fond of trying to workaround any strange bug a compiler may have.
This is not a particularly obscure issue for MSVC: you're defining a template member function outside the class body: template<class T, class Policies> template<class T1> inline interval<T, Policies>::interval(T1 const &v) { if (checking::is_nan(v)) set_empty(); else { rounding rnd; low = rnd.conv_down(v); up = rnd.conv_up (v); } } Just move it inside of the interval class template and you'll have portable code. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 10:58:36 -0500, Beman Dawes wrote
One of the actions we can take to ease releases is to fix regressions as they occur, rather than waiting until just before the next release.
I'm experimenting with some new reports that combine platforms, report regressions only, and make other improvements suggested by various people. Those experiments will take a while because I'm learning xslt in the process, and have some other commitments.
That sounds very cool :-)
In the meantime, I've changed the Win32 table
(http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32.html) to show diffs against February 3rd rather than just the prior day's run.
Looking at the results, there is lots of good news. Tests now passing, warnings removed, etc. But there are also regressions in a number of libraries:
Date-Time - Borland regressions, one VC++ 7.0 regression.
Yes, I'm in the process of fixing destabalizing (wide char input / output) changes in date-time. So you can expect date-time to be a bit flaky on the regression tests for awhile. Jeff
participants (5)
-
Beman Dawes -
David Abrahams -
Guillaume Melquiond -
Jeff Garland -
John Maddock