Boost logo

Boost :

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;
     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?


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