From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 08:29:16
Peter Dimov writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> > Peter Dimov writes:
> >> "Expected" turns red failures into yellow failures, right?
> > Green, actually, but with a link to a corresponding note/explanation.
> Can we make/leave them yellow? :-)
They are going to be yellow on the user-level library report.
> The tests fail, after all. How can a failure be green?
Well, it still says "fail" :).
> Maybe we need a way to mark a test "yellow failure, does not affect overall
That's basically the current meaning of the "expected failures" markup; the
expected failures rendered as green on the developer report because basically,
once the failures are marked, they become of the same interest to you as the
passing tests -- that is, of no interest.
> >> If so, and the failure is indeed a compiler bug,
> > That's basically what I wanted to know -- is it?
> I don't know, but the two tests do pass on 8.0 based on the report. Only 7.1
> fails. The bind_cv_test failure sure looks like a compiler bug (or an
> artifact of some bug compatibility mode) because it seems that the compiler
> invokes the non-const operator() on a const function object.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk