stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Black <abl...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: __rw_once warnings in non-reentrant Windows builds?
Date Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:02:08 GMT
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Andrew Black wrote:
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> CRT's, so the 11s builds are compiled with the same options as the 15s
>>>> (11d == 15d, 8s|d == 12s|d).
>>> Ugh. That means we've been doing a whole bunch of redundant builds
>>> on Windows.
>>
>> I think it would be more accurate to say that some of the builds have
>> been mislabeled and perhaps slightly misconfigured.  Those builds would
>> be the 8s and 11s builds with the Intel compiler.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that we haven't been
> doing duplicate builds with MSVC? I see a few 11s builds but no
> 11d's, and a number of 8s but no 12s. I've always thought the
> choice of builds was essentially arbitrary and that some types
> were simply not being exercised but it's beginning to look like
> there's actually some deeper logic to the schedule.

We've never intentionally done 8d and 11d builds on windows, as best I
can remember.  With MSVC 7.1 and GCC, we've been doing 8s, 11s, 12d and
15s.  This has also been done with Intel 9.1 and 10.0 on 32-bit windows
as a holdover from Intel 8.1 or 9.0, which used the MSVC 7.1 compiler.
For MSVC 8.0 and Intel on 64-bit windows, we are doing only 12d and 15s
builds.

The logic behind these choices has been that 12d is the most common type
of build for end-users, so 15s has been select to test the other half of
the relevant logic trees in reentrant builds.  For non-reentrant builds,
we only performed 8s and 11s builds, as the compiler doesn't have
switches for non-reentrant dynamic builds.  Had non-reentrant dynamic
builds been supported, we likely would have performed 8s and 11d builds,
 to test the release/static and debug/dynamic combinations.

--Andrew Black

Mime
View raw message