Boost logo

Boost :

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at