[1.36.0] High priority compilers for this release?

[Beman Dawes]

Loïc Joly wrote:
> Beman Dawes a écrit :
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>>  
>
> I think adding a version of VC++9.0 with microsoft optional TR1
> implementation would also be quite interresting.

Yes, and at least one of our 9.0 testers has it installed. But I'm
uncertain if we need to do anything specific about it, particularly as
the TR1 pack is still in beta IIRC.

--Beman

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Felipe Magno de Almeida]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@...> wrote:
>

[snip]

>  Testing is the issue. We need reliable *nightly* testing on both trunk
>  and release to seriously target a compiler, and we just haven't been
>  getting that for 7.1.
>
>  Rene and others did a lot of work during the last release cycle to make
>  testing more reliable and easier to run. So if someone wants to
>  contribute to Boost, running regression tests is easier than ever.

I have resources to test one platform. Though I would like to see 7.1 as
being a supported platform, I can't say it is worthwhile for me to
test it (we are porting
everything to 9.0). But would gladly contribute with testing MSVC 9.0 on x64.
As long as parallel builds work reliably.
I can offer some hours per day of a core 2 quad 2.4GHz with 8GB RAM on
vista x64.

>  --Beman

Thanks Beman,
--
Felipe Magno de Almeida
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Gubenko, Boris]

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Boris, which HP compiler/platform combinations would you like to support
> for 1.36.0?

HP-UX/aC++ (toolset acc) and HP-UX/gcc (toolset 4.2.1_hpux_ia64).
As the name suggests, for now, I'm using GCC 4.2.1, but I'll see
if we can upgrade to GCC 4.3.0.

I also run tests on Linux/ia64/GCC 3.4.6, but since other people
test this combination also, I'm not sure if it makes sense for
me to continue to run tests on this platform and/or ask to make
it a supported platform in 1.36. What do you think?

And yes, I can run both trunk and release tests.

Thanks,
  Boris

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Richard Webb]

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:

>
> > I think adding a version of VC++9.0 with microsoft optional TR1
> > implementation would also be quite interresting.
>
> Yes, and at least one of our 9.0 testers has it installed. But I'm
> uncertain if we need to do anything specific about it, particularly as
> the TR1 pack is still in beta IIRC.
>

I've been running the tests with the TR1 pack installed. The Boost.TR1 config
has already been updated to use the MS TR1 is present, so i dont think theres
anything else to do?

I'm told that TR1 support is going to be included in VC9 SP1.
It sounds like thats going to show up in the not too distant future, but i dont
know it will be before the Boost 1.36 release.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Beman Dawes]

Boris Gubenko wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Boris, which HP compiler/platform combinations would you like to support
>> for 1.36.0?
>
> HP-UX/aC++ (toolset acc) and HP-UX/gcc (toolset 4.2.1_hpux_ia64).
> As the name suggests, for now, I'm using GCC 4.2.1, but I'll see
> if we can upgrade to GCC 4.3.0.

Good! Let me know which GCC version you settle on.

> I also run tests on Linux/ia64/GCC 3.4.6, but since other people
> test this combination also, I'm not sure if it makes sense for
> me to continue to run tests on this platform and/or ask to make
> it a supported platform in 1.36. What do you think?

I'd like a Linux/ia64 release tester. Whichever version makes the most
sense. If you could handle the release testing for that.

> And yes, I can run both trunk and release tests.

Wonderful!

--Beman
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Gubenko, Boris]

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Good! Let me know which GCC version you settle on.

Will do.

> I'd like a Linux/ia64 release tester. Whichever version makes the most
> sense. If you could handle the release testing for that.

Yes, I can. Again, I'll see if we can upgrade to a more recent
version of GCC on this Linux machine.

Thanks,
  Boris

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[John Maddock]

Lars Gullik "Bjønnes" wrote:
>> Add GCC 4.3.0.
>
> I would really like to see that targeted for 1.35.1.
>
> (Unless you really, really speed up releases...)

What's the issue with gcc-4.3 and Boost-1.35?  I admit I haven't
built/tested everything with that compiler, but my experiments so far have
found no issues.

John.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[John Maddock]

Beman Dawes wrote:
>> I'm inclined to agree to that: Intel have been extremely responsive
>> in the past in responding to compiler issues relating to Boost, and
>> given the level of conformance offered by this compiler, does it
>> really soak up that much time to officially support it?  Incidently,
>> it's good to have at least one EDG based front end in our official
>> support list, even if it does emulate the MSVC bugs ;-)
>
> Would you like to volunteer for testing and followup:-?

OK I walked into that I guess ! :-)

Yes OK, forward all Intel-Win32 issues to me and I'll try and look into
them.

What I can't easily do is run the full regression tests on my laptop :-(

John.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Paul A. Bristow-2]

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces@...
>[mailto:boost-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Loïc Joly
>Sent: 03 April 2008 20:19
>To: boost@...
>Subject: Re: [boost] [1.36.0] High priority compilers for this release?
>
>Beman Dawes a écrit :
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Add Microsoft VC++ 9.0. This is now the most current version.
>>  
>
>I think adding a version of VC++9.0 with microsoft optional TR1
>implementation would also be quite interresting.
>--
>Loïc Joly

I second this - many people will want to know if the MS TR1 and Boost TR1 play together nicely: if they squabble, it will cause
trouble deep in the engine room and bring the hapless users to a grinding halt.

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow@...

 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Richard Webb]

John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:

>
> Lars Gullik "Bjønnes" wrote:
> >> Add GCC 4.3.0.
> >
> > I would really like to see that targeted for 1.35.1.
> >
> > (Unless you really, really speed up releases...)
>
> What's the issue with gcc-4.3 and Boost-1.35?  I admit I haven't
> built/tested everything with that compiler, but my experiments so far have
> found no issues.
>

Theres a few GCC 4.3 tickets open in the tracker, several of which are just
about adding missing includes.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Martin Bonner-2]

From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz

> Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
>>
>> In proposing additions, please remember that each added compiler
>> costs us resources such as developer's time, and that our
>> regression report processing system is easy to overload. Also,
>> we won't accept a new platform unless someone is willing to run
>> *daily* regression tests for it.
>
> I'd like to bring the following idea for discussion: Besides
> mainstream platforms, additional, more exotic platforms can be
> provisionally included into the supported set *provided that*
> they are associated to a volunteer *platform champion*. A platform
> champion will

[snip - "ensure the platform works"]

> If the champion resigns or is not able to keep a high quality
> level on the platform, the platform is dropped.
>
> Does this make sense?

It sounds like an absolutely /excellent/ plan to me.  Apart from
anything else, it formalizes what somebody needs to do in order to get
their favourite platform supported.

--

Martin Bonner
Senior Software Engineer/Team Leader

PI SHURLOK LTD
Telephone: [phone] / 203894 (direct)
Fax: [phone]
Email: martin.bonner@...
www.pi-shurlok.com

disclaimer
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Doug Gregor]

On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:52 AM, John Maddock wrote:

> Lars Gullik "Bjønnes" wrote:
>>> Add GCC 4.3.0.
>>
>> I would really like to see that targeted for 1.35.1.
>>
>> (Unless you really, really speed up releases...)
>
> What's the issue with gcc-4.3 and Boost-1.35?  I admit I haven't
> built/tested everything with that compiler, but my experiments so  
> far have
> found no issues.

The other issue is that it would be great to test gcc-4.3 in C++0x  
mode (-std=gnu++0x) as well as C++98 mode. Then we can start taking  
advantage of some of the 0x features.

        - Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Schrader, Glenn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces@... [mailto:boost-bounces@...]
> On Behalf Of Joaquin M Lopez Munoz
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:42 PM
> To: boost@...
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.36.0] High priority compilers for this release?
>
<CLIP>

>
> I'd like to bring the following idea for discussion: Besides
> mainstream platforms, additional, more exotic platforms can be
> provisionally included into the supported set *provided that*
> they are associated to a volunteer *platform champion*. A platform
> champion will
>
> * Make sure there's a daily regression test for the platform
> (either run by her or some other party).
> * Continuously scans the platform-specific regressions and
> trac tickets in every Boost library, studies them and proposes
> tried patches. For a reasonably conformant compiler, this is
> actually not as hard to do as it might sound, as many fixes
> (in my experience) are very local in nature and can be fixed
> without having any deep knowledge of the code being fixed. I've
> done my share of fixing for MSVC 6.0 and can attest this. The
> point is that in fixing platform-specific glitches it is way
> more valuable to have someone with knowledge of and access to
> the platform than someone with knowledge of the lib itself.
> * Is available for answering question on the platform and try
> tests and stuff on demand.
>
> If the champion resigns or is not able to keep a high quality
> level on the platform, the platform is dropped.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Joaquín M López Muñoz
> Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

Even for the mainstream there are a huge number of combinations of supporting tools/libraries (e.g. MPI, python, etc) and compilers (e.g. gcc, msvc, etc). Each of these has some number of release versions, each could have different build options (e.g. debug vs optimized or shared vs static vs both), as well as boost itself which has quite a few of its own build options. This is, of course, way too much to test exhaustively but the set of configurations that are actually used is probably still huge.

To make a dent in that kind of test set an enormous amount of computation is needed. An approach that looks interesting is seti@home. The basic idea is to set up a BOINC project for boost build testing and distribute the test load across anybody who wants to contribute cycles. The "dataset" that is being processed could consist of the entire toolchain (gcc + libs + boost + etc) for the open source pieces. The project should probably maintain an entire internal toolchain so that is doesn't rely on much more than the kernel version and network access from a client system. Commercial compilers and such couldn't be downloaded so there would need to be a project configuration mechanism to allow a particular user to say whether he has any of those compilers installed and their version. The project could for instance cache builds of supporting items (e.g. gcc) so that it wouldn't have to rebuild them for each test. All of the test results would be reported back to the boost site and aggregated into a master test results matrix. All of this could be done either nightly or continuously.

The nice thing about this is that a given user doesn't need to understand the build process in order to contribute resources to it. This low entry barrier would allow participation by users who would otherwise balk at the amount of commitment needed.

Having said all of this, I have never looked into actually setting up a BOINC project. Does anybody have insight into whether this is a sane thing to try? If it would work then prototyping this would make a nice GSOC project.

--glenn

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Amit-37]

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:
> We would need a volunteer or volunteers to (1) do the testing, and (2)
> work with Intel and Boost developers to ensure that bugs get fixed.
>
> Sean Huang has been testing the trunk, and I've been testing the release
> branch. I really want to turn the release branch testing over to someone
> else, and find someone else to pester Intel and/or Boost developers when
> things break.
>
> So we basically need an Intel/Windows volunteer.

I can't really volunteer for nightly testing as I only have access to the
compiler at my employer's workplace. But can volunteer to investigate specific
issues, get clarifications from Intel etc.

Is there not a third way though: platforms lacking active volunteers need not
be constantly supported, but when a new release is imminent, casual volunteers
(like myself) be roped in to test the release to iron out any minor issues, or
if there are major problems, to at least figure out a subset of boost that would
work on these platforms?

Best,
Amit


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Tim Blechmann-2]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:52:21 +0100, John Maddock wrote:

> Lars Gullik "Bjønnes" wrote:
>>> Add GCC 4.3.0.
>>
>> I would really like to see that targeted for 1.35.1.
>>
>> (Unless you really, really speed up releases...)
>
> What's the issue with gcc-4.3 and Boost-1.35?  I admit I haven't
> built/tested everything with that compiler, but my experiments so far
> have found no issues.

most issues are related to gcc's strict implementation of the c++
standard ...

see http://tim.klingt.org/git?p=boost.git;a=summary for my private git
tree, which contains the gcc-4.3 fixes for the parts of boost, that i
need in my application ...

best, tim

--
tim@...
http://tim.klingt.org

art is short - life is long
  Jack Kerouac

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Richard Webb]

Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> writes:

>
> Yes, and at least one of our 9.0 testers has it installed. But I'm
> uncertain if we need to do anything specific about it, particularly as
> the TR1 pack is still in beta IIRC.
>

f.y.i, Microsoft have just release the final version of the TR1 pack:
http://blogs.msdn.com/vcblog/archive/2008/04/07/visual-c-2008-feature-pack-released.aspx

I'll install this later and run the regression tests with it.

Thanks,
Richard Webb

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Paul A. Bristow-2]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces@...
>[mailto:boost-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Richard Webb
>Sent: 07 April 2008 14:26
>To: boost@...
>Subject: Re: [boost] [1.36.0] High priority compilers for this release?
>
>f.y.i, Microsoft have just release the final version of the TR1 pack:
>http://blogs.msdn.com/vcblog/archive/2008/04/07/visual-c-2008-f
>eature-pack-released.aspx
>
>I'll install this later and run the regression tests with it.

Please report your experience here - I am sure lots of people will be thinking about this and wondering what to do.

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow@...

 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Richard Webb]

Paul A Bristow <pbristow <at> hetp.u-net.com> writes:

>
> Please report your experience here - I am sure lots of people will be thinking
about this and wondering what
> to do.

The test results are now up @
http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/summary.html
 under the RW_WinXP_VC runner. It looks like the jrp tests have the TR1 pack
installed as well.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[David Walthall-2]

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Changes I'd like to see include:
>>
>> * Drop Microsoft VC++ 7.1. Supporting two versions (9.0 and 8.0) is
>> about all we can afford.
>
> I'd like to kindly ask to continue supporting VC 7.1 at least for a
> release or two. This compiler is still rather popular and is quite
> capable to compile modern C++.

I would also like to see continued support for VC++ 7.1 since that is
the compiler that I use.  I'm willing to do testing on this platform (if
the computer I have available for testing can do them quickly enough).

I looked at the directions for running tests:
http://www.boost.org/development/running_regression_tests.html
Is there anything else I need to do (e.g. registering my runner ID)
before I run the tests?

Thanks,
David

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Rene Rivera-2]

David Walthall wrote:
> I looked at the directions for running tests:
> http://www.boost.org/development/running_regression_tests.html
> Is there anything else I need to do (e.g. registering my runner ID)
> before I run the tests?

No, there's no registering. About the only suggestion I have is to
recommend you set up a user-config.jam.


--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost