Fwd: Re: [Boost-Users] HP, aCC and the standards
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 17:18, Tom Matelich wrote:
Who is running those tests, and what version of aCC is that?
I am. I'm using aCC version 53800 currently installed on an HPUX11i. You might notice on the HP website that the latest release was 53700 so it's newer than new ;-) Nevertheless, conformance is still bad. There were quite some messages on the boost-ml on the support for HP recently.
-----Original Message----- From: Toon Knapen [mailto:toon.knapen@si-lab.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:15 AM To: Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Boost-Users] HP, aCC and the standards
On Monday 03 February 2003 18:06, Tom Matelich wrote:
I would recommend contacting the aCC support people. They
are generally
quite reasonable. In fact, the hp status tables (which
appear a bit out of
date) at http://www.boost.org/status/cs-hpux.html are run
remotely on a box
provided by HP for boost to use.
For an updated status-page, check out : http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ and you see that aCC has the highest failure rate ! I also recently talked to an HP representative and he was under the impression that aCC was very confirming.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption! http://us.click.yahoo.com/LIgTpC/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/EbFolB/TM -------------------------------------------------------------- -------~->
Info: <http://www.boost.org> Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl> Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
----------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Information contained in this message and/or attachment(s) may contain confidential information of Zetec, Inc. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return email. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Info: <http://www.boost.org> Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl> Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------------------------------------------------
--- At Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:48:17 +0100, Toon Knapen wrote:
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 17:18, Tom Matelich wrote:
Who is running those tests, and what version of aCC is that?
I am. I'm using aCC version 53800 currently installed on an HPUX11i. You might notice on the HP website that the latest release was 53700 so it's newer than new ;-) Nevertheless, conformance is still bad.
This is out of curiosity following this thread, but conformance to what is still bad? Arent the boost tests testing "conformance" to boost libraries or the ability to compile and execute boost libraries? This is quite different from "conforming" to the standard. I exepect that boost tries to stay within the confines of the standard, but clearly many boost libraries push the envelope. While many compiler vendors strive to be able to compile boost, is this really a measure of Standard C++ conformance? ...Duane p.s. With the low marks that aCC is getting, I can imagine that its Standard C++ conformance is probably very low as well.
In news:20030205161921.15120@mail.murphyslogic.com, Duane Murphy <duanemurphy@mac.com> typed:
--- At Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:48:17 +0100, Toon Knapen wrote:
On Tuesday 04 February 2003 17:18, Tom Matelich wrote:
Who is running those tests, and what version of aCC is that?
I am. I'm using aCC version 53800 currently installed on an HPUX11i. You might notice on the HP website that the latest release was 53700 so it's newer than new ;-) Nevertheless, conformance is still bad.
This is out of curiosity following this thread, but conformance to what is still bad? Arent the boost tests testing "conformance" to boost libraries or the ability to compile and execute boost libraries? This is quite different from "conforming" to the standard. I exepect that boost tries to stay within the confines of the standard, but clearly many boost libraries push the envelope.
What is "pushing the envelope?" Either it's legal C++ or it's not.
While many compiler vendors strive to be able to compile boost, is this really a measure of Standard C++ conformance?
A pretty good one. That's why they use it as a test.
p.s.
With the low marks that aCC is getting, I can imagine that its Standard C++ conformance is probably very low as well.
Precisely. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
While many compiler vendors strive to be able to compile boost, is this really a measure of Standard C++ conformance?
A pretty good one. That's why they use it as a test.
It may be true, but HP won't accept it. We help them a lot if we can point to a part of the standard and can show an "aCC -E" output and an "aCC -c" output and say: "this point is badly implemented, because it is not compiled, although the standard said it should".
participants (2)
-
Dave Abrahams -
dlux42 <dlux＠spam.sch.bme.hu> -
Duane Murphy -
Toon Knapen