From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-19 16:33:17
"Phil Richards" <news_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On 2005-06-17, Phil Richards <news_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 2005-06-17, Phil Richards <news_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Thought I would try and track down the reason for the "Fail" being
>> > shown in the HTML regression report generated by compiler_status.
>> > The "pass" assignment should take account of the "test-type".
>> > (I can put a patch together, but I might not cover all the cases
>> > since I don't know the system too well yet.)
>> Not the most error-checked code in the world (should test_type
>> be validated?), but here's a patch that gets rid of a lot of
>> "Fail"s that weren't really fails:
> As I said, not particularly checked, and as it turned out, wrong.
> This version does seem to work a lot better...
OK, applied to CVS. Thanks very much for detecting this problem and
submitting a patch.
In boot-root/tools/regression/test, the existing test programs were renamed
to better identify the expected results, and new test programs were added to
detect regressions of the problem Phil detected, and also detect similar
Those new tests identified an additional minor problem, where compile-fail
tests which succeeded were reported as "Warn" rather than "Pass". That has
also been fixed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk