This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: boost archive used for testing
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 09:16:39 -0800
- Subject: Re: boost archive used for testing
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0304021318100.14072@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:19:49PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On a couple of pages we have links to
> http://www.boost.org/boost_all.tar.gz
> which doesn't exist any longer.
>
> How should we resolve this?
There are several versions and formats to choose from at SourceForge.
Should we recommend a particular version for GCC integration testing
and if so, which one? (That question is for people familiar with
Boost.)
The other packages ought to be updated as well. A few days ago I built
the recommended version of Blitz++, which gets tons of warnings with 3.3
on powerpc64-linux but passes all tests. A more recent version doesn't
get warnings and also passes all tests. I haven't tried it with
mainline, but some of these older versions might not even compile with
the new C++ parser. That was true of FTensor, due to questionable code
in FTensor (according to Walter Landry) rather than problems with the
new parser.
> (Ideally, we'd really have just one link to every external package used
> for testing. Do you have a good idea on how to solve that, Janis?)
We can move links to particular application packages down to the
build and test guides; that goes for the tarball and also for the
link to information about the package. If an app listed among the
release criteria doesn't have a build and test guide, we can remove
it until someone provides one. I had meant to remove the build and
test guides from gcc-3.1 and redirect those to the ones in the
testing directory; I'll do that.
Janis