From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-29 12:05:36
From: "Darin Adler" <darin_at_[hidden]>
> On 11/29/01 6:47 AM, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > How should we proceed in cases like this? #ifdef the test case just to
> > 'pass'? Or keep the test as-is and be honest with users?
> The downside of leaving the test as-is is that this single problem causes
> the entire bind_test to fail. This means that when we make other changes
> bind, the regression test doesn't catch the problems.
True. But on the other hand #ifdef-ing out the test case puts no pressure on
Metrowerks to fix the compiler. ;-)
> Because of this, I think it's reasonable to turn off parts of the tests
> if that's misleading.
> I especially like Beman's suggestion of using
> Boost.Config to remind ourselves of the particular shortcoming of the
> compiler that requires turning off part of the test. Adding things to
> Boost.Config does require a bit of work, though. And we don't have a
> particular BOOST_NO_XXX for this particular problem, do we?
No; the problem is Metrowerks specific. I don't even know what, exactly, the
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk