Re: [boost] **** SPAM **** Broken failure markup

From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-14 11:22:07

David Abrahams wrote:
> Douglas Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> |concept_check|
>>   class_concept_fail_expected:  borland-5.6.4  borland-5.8.2  borland-5.8.2  msvc-6.5  msvc-6.5  msvc-7.0
>>   stl_concept_covering:  borland-5.8.2  borland-5.8.2  gcc-3.3.6  gcc-3.4.5_linux  gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.0.3_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux  gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64  gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
> 
> Jeremy Siek checked in expected failures markup for all these tests
> well over one week ago.  The markup looks OK to me, but the failures
> are still showing up.  What's going on here?

I don't think marking them as expected to fail on all platforms is the 
way to go. I looked into the one that seemingly is causing one of the 
stl_concept_covering tests:

   {
#if defined(__GNUC__)
     typedef less_than_op_first_archetype<> FT;
     typedef less_than_op_second_archetype<> T;
#elif defined(__KCC)
     // The KAI version of this uses a one-argument less-than function
     // object.
     typedef less_than_comparable_archetype<> T;
     typedef convertible_to_archetype<T> FT;
#endif
     forward_iterator_archetype<FT> fi;
     T value(dummy_cons);
     fi = std::lower_bound(fi, fi, value);
   }

This looks very strange to me. Only __GNUC__ or __KCC ever will be able 
to pass. What about other compilers, or nothing of both defined? Why not 
simply disable the test in these cases?

Roland