On Sun, 25 May 2003, Beman Dawes wrote: > I think that Greg Comeau has a good point in his email below - reporting > separate pass / warn / fail statistics in the regression summary can be > misleading to naive readers.
(What are naive readers trying to do with Boost? :-) ) I think this column is important and should not be removed. I don't think compiler developpers put warnings in order to just annoy the user. There is always a meaning to them. Sometimes it's just noise. But some other times it means the compiler hasn't really understand what the user wanted and so will blindly do something that may be wrong. Consequently, some developpers always disallow warnings when compiling production code (for example the option -Werror for GCC). So, in their opinion, a warning is nothing different than an error since the compilation will fail. And when they come to the regression page in order to know if their particular compiler/platform is supported by Boost, they want to see this column. That was for the user. Now for me as a Boost developper, I will just give an example: if this column was not present, I wouldn't have sent a patch to remove 50 warnings on Intel compiler for Linux. It's because I could compare the number of warnings for GCC, ICC on Windows and ICC on Linux that I saw there was a problem. > On the other hand, we certainly want to continue to report warnings in the > tables themselves. > > So it seems to me that in the summary we should lump "pass" and "warn" from > the tables together into a single "pass" category in the summary. > > Opinions? > > --Beman So if I had to take a decision (but it's not the case), I would let the warning column as it is. On the particular problem of the number of warnings with Comeau compiler, it would be a better bet to send a patch that removes all spurious trailing semi-colon in the Date-time library. It would remove a lot of warnings (~20 warnings) for this compiler and it wouldn't be necessary anymore to remove the warning column. Regards, Guillaume PS: Speaking about regression tests, would it be easy to add the kind of failures in the tables? For example, indicate "Fail(R)" in place of "Fail" when the error occured at run time. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost