From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 01:52:59
Beman Dawes wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> Tobias,
>>>
>>> function_types is showing 36 failures. What is the plan to eliminate or
>>> mark these up as expected?
>>> |function_types|
>>> fast_mem_fn_example: msvc-7.1
>>> interface_example: msvc-7.1
>> Those ^^ seem regressions - I'll try to fix them.
>>
>>> member_ccs: darwin-4.0.1 darwin-4.0.1 darwin-4.0.1
>>> gcc-4.1.2_sunos_i86pc gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64
>>> intel-linux-9.0 intel-vc8-win-10.0 msvc-8.0_64
>>> member_ccs_exact: darwin-4.0.1 darwin-4.0.1 darwin-4.0.1
>>> gcc-4.1.2_sunos_i86pc gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64
>>> intel-linux-9.0 intel-vc8-win-10.0 msvc-8.0_64
>>> nonmember_ccs: darwin-4.0.1 gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1
>>> gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64 intel-linux-9.0 intel-vc8-win-10.0 msvc-8.0_64
>>> nonmember_ccs_exact: darwin-4.0.1 gcc-4.2.1 gcc-4.2.1
>>> gcc-4.2.1_linux_x86_64 intel-linux-9.0 intel-vc8-win-10.0 msvc-8.0_64
>> Those ^^ are due to a
>>
>> #error test skipped
>>
>> kind of thing and should be marked as expected (the library's default
>> configuration does not know about nonstandard calling conventions
>> implemented by those compilers - probably none).
>>
>> I recently spotted some problems with other compilers (BCC in
>> particular) that deserve a closer look.
>>
>> What's the schedule for the upcoming release - IOW how much time do I have?
>
> Since function_types is generating the second highest number of
> failures, I prefer you did the markup right away. It is hard to get
> people to focus on libraries with one or two failures while there are
> still library's with double digit failure rates.
I see - will add markup later today.
> It would be nice if the msvc-7.1 failures were cleared in the next week.
> There is less time pressure for failures on lower priority compilers,
> such as Borland.
OK, that seems doable.
Regards,
Tobias