[batpigandme]

---

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:

• task: lint_filenames status: passed
• task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
• task: lint_markdown_pkg_readmes status: na
• task: lint_markdown_docs status: na
• task: lint_markdown status: na
• task: lint_package_json status: na
• task: lint_repl_help status: na
• task: lint_javascript_src status: na
• task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
• task: lint_javascript_examples status: na
• task: lint_javascript_tests status: na
• task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_python status: na
• task: lint_r status: na
• task: lint_c_src status: na
• task: lint_c_examples status: na
• task: lint_c_benchmarks status: na
• task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
• task: lint_shell status: na
• task: lint_typescript_declarations status: passed
• task: lint_typescript_tests status: na
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed

---

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Upgrades Boost from 1.69.0 to 1.92.0 (the current release). This updates DEPS_BOOST_VERSION in tools/make/common.mk, adds the download checksum Boost publishes for boost_1_92_0.tar.gz, and removes the 1.69.0 checksum.
• Updates the C++ test fixture runner Makefiles (test/fixtures/cpp/Makefile, 22 packages) and the C++ fixture runner snippet template (tools/snippets/test/fixtures/cpp/boost/Makefile) from -std=c++11 to -std=c++14.

This is part of the "accuracy-visibility" project to create fixtures for several implementations to compare against stdlib and MPFR

C++14 is the min standard Boost.Math requires ("cxxstd": "14" in its meta/libraries.json). Under C++11, current Boost.Math warns "Boost.Math requires C++14", and the runners don't build against it, so fixtures can't be generated or tested against current Boost implementations. 1.92.0 also includes Boost.JSON, first released in 1.75.0, so new fixture runners can read shared JSON inputs.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

No.

Reference Packages

Did the content of this pull request follow one or more existing packages? Answering is optional.

This pull request followed these packages:

• None. The Boost upgrade follows the last one, 4362cf8, which changed the same three files.

What carried over from the reference(s)?

• The shape of the upgrade: the version in common.mk, a new checksum file, and the old one removed.

What differed, or what did you have to work out yourself?

• Which version to pin and where its checksum comes from: 1.92.0, the current release, with the SHA-256 that Boost publishes in boost_1_92_0.tar.gz.json at archives.boost.io.
• The C++ standard, from each Boost library's own meta/libraries.json: Boost.Math needs C++14, and Boost.Random, the only other Boost library the runners include, needs C++11.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

• Should the 43 benchmark/cpp/boost Makefiles, and COMMON_CXXFLAGS in tools/make/common.mk, move to C++14 as well? They build against the new Boost either way.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

• Agreed with Athan beforehand (min C++ version required to run current Boost).
• No fixtures are regenerated here (those will be in subsequent per-package PRs).
• Checked on x86_64 Linux (gcc 15.3): make install-deps-boost at 1.92.0 downloads, verifies, extracts, and passes its install test, and 21 of the 22 runners build at -std=c++14 with no warnings. On macOS on Apple silicon (Apple clang 21), make install-deps-boost and make test-fixtures-cpp-files work with no overrides, using the new defaults.

⚠️ Watch outs

• ellipe's runner doesn't build at either standard or Boost version, because it calls ellint_1 with no using declaration (runner.cpp line 289). That's left for a separate PR, to keep this one minimal.
• At 1.92.0, expm1's runner throws an overflow error at its last input (x = 709.78) before writing medium_positive.json. No fixtures are regenerated here, so it only affects a later regeneration.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

Claude (Opus 5.5) found the files the upgrade touches, made the changes, and checked the Boost 1.92.0 install and the runner builds on x86_64 Linux and macOS. I reviewed the changes and the findings, PR description, etc.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[kgryte]

LGTM

[kgryte]

Should the 43 benchmark/cpp/boost Makefiles, and COMMON_CXXFLAGS in tools/make/common.mk, move to C++14 as well? They build against the new Boost either way.

Yes. Would you mind submitting a follow-up PR?

[kgryte]

Re: watch-outs. Yes, please feel free to submit follow-up PRs. Cheers!

[kgryte]

As the CI failure is expected, I'll go ahead and merge.