Re: [boost] Boost regression testing status

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-29 14:55:04

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:53:39 +0100, "John Maddock"
<john_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>>> Nope, my pet hate at present is http://tinyurl.com/jqe7j where the
>>> results from one test (an expected failure, marked up) are being
>>> listed under a completely different test :-(
>> 
>> Argh :-(
>> 
>> John, while you are here, I saw that you didn't reply about
>> identifying min/max guideline violations in comments being difficult
>> via regexes. That made me think twice, as I supposed it was pretty
>> easy to do with sub_matches or alternation. The basis seems to be
>> "//.*$" for single-line comments and "/\*.*?\*/" for multi-line ones.
>> What am I missing? :-)
>
>Actually not much, try "//[^\n\r]*" for single lines though.

Thanks for the hint. After a night (or two? not sure :-)) of sleep I
decided for the solution indicated in the thread "Inspect Tool Update
(was: Boost regression testing status)". Maybe an Inspect V2 could be
based on Wave to do full tokenization and preprocessing of the
inspected source files.

About the regression test mess, dynamic_bitset is not listed in the
report, but has some "red" failures on compilers which I don't think
were tested before (which I've discovered by chance); and cases where
the same compiler passes or not depending on the test runner (e.g.
VC7). Honestly, even if all this has an explanation, are such tests
useful?

--
[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]