Boost logo

Boost :

From: Misha Bergal (mbergal_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-03 11:47:46

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> misha_at_[hidden] writes:
>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 2. You used toolset="*", probably because:
>> * it was too painful to replicate the comment to different
>> toolsets
>> * you just didn't know which toolsets to specify (Beman and
>> we use different toolsets for testing)
> No, it's because those tests failing is indicative of unimplimented
> SFINAE. When they fail, the same comment really does apply in all
> cases.
>> We are aware of these issues.
>> Regarding the first one, it was a conscious decision to do it.
> Sorry, to "do what"? Make it painful to replicate the comment?

No, wait for feedback like yours.

>> I didn't have any idea on how often the same comment is
>> applicable to different toolsets and didn't want to create
>> something which is not goging to be useful. I guess, if there
>> will be more situation like yours we will have to add support to
>> more flexible mark definition.
> ?? I thought tollset="*" is supported already. Last night's tables
> seem to reflect that belief.

Yes it is. But I would not call it a "flexible mark
definition". Frankly, I am not yet convinced that toolset="*" is a
safe thing to do. What if the test fails for other reason - the mark
will automatically apply to it and the new failure will be not recognized.

The logic is:

if test_status == "fail"
   if ( cell is explicitly marked ) { cell_color = "green"; }
   if ( no regression ) { cell_color = "green" }

>> Regarding the second one, I guess some work needs to be done in
>> unifying toolsets (toolset names) used for regression testing
>> (like
> Probably a good idea.
>>> I think it might be helpful for users if there were a color which
>>> indicates degraded, but still-mostly-working, functionality. Sort of,
>>> "this library basically works, but see the failure log for corner
>>> cases", as opposed to "we expect this to fail and it's been reported
>>> to the compiler vendor, but it mostly makes the library unusable".
>> I will modify the HTML with current results to reflect the changes I
>> propose and will post the link to it - it would be easier to discuss
>> the issue if we have the something to look at.

See for implementation of "unusable".

The markup is explicit - the library has to be explicitly marked up,
as opposite to automatically determining this by looking at the failed
non-corner cases.

I will do the markup for corner cases shortly.

Misha Bergal
MetaCommunications Engineering

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