Boost logo

Boost :

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 10:00:37

On Monday 05 August 2002 10:28 am, Beman Dawes wrote:
> Looking at it today, we see that yesterday's function changes broke
> function_test for several compilers, and some integer related warnings got
> cleared (in several tests).

Will there be any notion of an expected failure in this testing system?
I'd really like to make function_test an expected failure for compilers that
can't handle it instead of hiding the problems behind #ifdefs (there's no
feasible workaround AFAICT). How's a vendor or user ever to know that there's
a problem if we slip an #ifdef around the things that don't work?

> I consider the click-through to the compiler, linker, and run messages to
> be a great success. It really makes it easy to inspect failures.

It's very nice! One little nitpick: '<' seems to be replaced with "&lt"
instead of "&lt;" in the -links document.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at