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 "<"
instead of "<" in the -links document.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk