Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] marking shared_ptr_move_test known failure

From: Boris Gubenko (Boris.Gubenko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-28 19:07:52

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Boris Gubenko wrote:
>>
>> You mean "<toolset name="*"/> so it unexpectedly passes on
>> gcc-4.3.0_c++0x ?
>
> Yes, I think that this will be best (unless it inhibits testing entirely).

Done.

Thanks,
  Boris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc: "Boris Gubenko" <Boris.Gubenko_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] marking shared_ptr_move_test known failure

> Boris Gubenko wrote:
>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> [...] In fact you can even mark it a known failure for any compiler
>>> since this is probably going to be the right default for new
>>> toolsets for quite
>>> a while.
>>
>> You mean "<toolset name="*"/> so it unexpectedly passes on
>> gcc-4.3.0_c++0x ?
>
> Yes, I think that this will be best (unless it inhibits testing entirely).
> Unfortunately our current infrastructure gives us no easy way to say "only
> run this test when BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS is defined, else consider it an
> expected failure". Marking it as expected failure everywhere seems the
> closest approximation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>