Boost logo

Boost :

From: Janek Kozicki (janek_listy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-06 02:12:11

Peter Dimov said: (by the date of Mon, 6 Nov 2006 03:44:00 +0200)

> 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.

Is is possible to mark expected failures as "with exactly this error
message" ? If the message is different then it is no longer an
expected failure but a real failure and people should notice.

By that way regression tests will only allow this certain failure
where the "linker is folding duplicate identical functions
into one".

Janek Kozicki                                                         |

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at