From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-05 20:44:00
Anthony Williams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> It's not an expected failure if the optimization is not enabled.
> I wouldn't know that if you hadn't just told me, and the summary
> report shows it as "Broken".
That's because the summary report has no way of knowing that the last known
good release has been using a different configuration, as it only looks at
the toolset name - AFAIK. It could be made smarter... or you could pick a
different toolset name such as vc71-release so it can be marked up
appropriately. Or is it already possible to mark failures based on
debug/release? I don't know. In general I don't like marking tests that work
as expected failures because when they fail for real, nobody notices.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk