Re: [boost] [bind] Intel/Linux failures

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 
> greenness".

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. 

OK, thanks!

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering