From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-05 10:08:19
Alisdair Meredith <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> ...although now the only expected failure tests we have left are
>> compile-fail. So I don't know what to do with the others.
> Could we introduce a third result. Pass and fail we know, 'error' would
> the test could not actually be run. This would reflect a compile fail
> for link/runtime tests, missing/corrupt files for compile tests (perhaps
> due to CVS corruption) and probably a couple more corner cases I haven't
> thought about yet.
Those get flagged as "fail" right now. I think introducing more
distinctions might be difficult, though I'm not certain. I'll take a
look at it.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk