• Arjan (3/3) Jul 07 2006 8.49.2 vs 8.48.10
• Pavel Vozenilek (6/8) Jul 07 2006 That's /very/ useful tool.
• Arjan (8/25) Jul 07 2006 I know what you mean ;-) Took me quite some time before I had it going.
• Arjan (1/1) Jul 07 2006 oops wrong attachement
• Walter Bright (4/9) Jul 07 2006 This is great for checking the status.
• Pavel Vozenilek (7/9) Jul 09 2006 It would be useful to define BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG
• Arjan (5/22) Jul 10 2006 Good tip!

Arjan <arjan ask.me> writes:

8.49.2 vs 8.48.10

see http://www.digitalmars.com/~arjan/boost/status/dmc8492/cs-dmc.html

Arjan

"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek yahoo.co.uk> writes:

"Arjan" wrote:

 8.49.2 vs 8.48.10

 see http://www.digitalmars.com/~arjan/boost/status/dmc8492/cs-dmc.html

That's /very/ useful tool.


I was told that Metacom had switched their tests
week ago but nothing is visible. I planned to set
something like this but didn't find enough of courage.

/Pavel

Arjan <arjan ask.me> writes:

Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
 "Arjan" wrote:
 
 8.49.2 vs 8.48.10

 see http://www.digitalmars.com/~arjan/boost/status/dmc8492/cs-dmc.html

 
 That's /very/ useful tool.
 
 
 I was told that Metacom had switched their tests
 week ago but nothing is visible. I planned to set
 something like this but didn't find enough of courage.
 
 /Pavel
 
 

I know what you mean ;-) Took me quite some time before I had it going.

Attached a zip containing my modification to boost tools/build/v1/dmc-* 
and 2 command scripts.
Extract in boost root dir.
Run from the status dir dmcstatus.cmd. After a while a few crashed 
asserts etc there will new cs-win32-*.html files.

Arjan

Arjan <arjan ask.me> writes:

oops wrong attachement

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Arjan wrote:
 8.49.2 vs 8.48.10
 
 see http://www.digitalmars.com/~arjan/boost/status/dmc8492/cs-dmc.html
 
 Arjan

This is great for checking the status.

It looks like the column labeled 8.48.10 should be 8.49.1 ? I didn't 
think 8.48.10 passed any of the type_traits tests.

"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek yahoo.co.uk> writes:

"Arjan" wrote:

 8.49.2 vs 8.48.10

 see http://www.digitalmars.com/~arjan/boost/status/dmc8492/cs-dmc.html

It would be useful to define BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG
macro value, e.g. inside boost/detail/workaround.hpp.

That would get rid few DMC related workarounds
in Boost code. They may be obsolete currently
or may hide fixeable bugs.

/Pavel

Arjan <arjan ask.me> writes:

Pavel Vozenilek wrote:
 "Arjan" wrote:
 
 8.49.2 vs 8.48.10

 see http://www.digitalmars.com/~arjan/boost/status/dmc8492/cs-dmc.html

 
 It would be useful to define BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG
 macro value, e.g. inside boost/detail/workaround.hpp.
 
 That would get rid few DMC related workarounds
 in Boost code. They may be obsolete currently
 or may hide fixeable bugs.
 
 /Pavel
 
 

Good tip!
Will rerun the regression test with -DBOOST_STRICT_CONFIG for both last 
beta and 8.48.

Arjan