From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 08:02:38
> OK, I'll start running them again tomorrow. Its just uncommenting a
> line in a shell script, no biggie.
>
> FWIW, there had been numerous comments to the effect of "why do we
> even bother with this compiler?", and noone ever responded to my
> numerous threats to stop running the regression tests with SunPRO, so
> I just stopped them last week to save cycles. I didn't think they
> would be missed.
Fair enough. If only we could figure out why Boost.Test was failing (it
looked like a legitimate compiler error), we could probably get the failure
rate down quite a bit.
> Who should I work with to get the appropriate tests marked as
> known-to-fail or N/A? This exercise is necessary for some
> gcc-on-Solaris tests as well. For instance, all of the "*_lib" tests
> in Boost.Thread fail because "gcc -static" won't link with *any*
> shared libs. Solaris does not provide static versions of -lrt or
> -lthread, so these tests fail to link. There really should really be
> a "-prefer-static" option to gcc.. Alternately, the Jamfiles could be
> hacked to use -Wl,-Bstatic / -Wl,-Bdynamic guards around the inclusion
> of the Boost.Thread lib for these tests.
That would probably be my preferred option, is it just a case of
adding -Wl,-Bdynamic to the very end of the command line? Rene would
probably know the best way to fix this.
John.