Re: [Boost-testing] broken reporting of failure expectations

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-03 23:15:58

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Whatever the consensus is going to be, in the short term explicit
>> entries are the way to go.
>
> Okay, I'll fix those up.

Well, I did it, but I'm not really sure what I'm doing.  For one
thing, none of the expected failures in the iterators library seem to
show what the actual error was.  For example,
http://tinyurl.com/936ec.

For another, there are a number of toolsets in the report, such as
"gcc" and "mingw," whose version numbers are hard or impossible to
determine.  I can't really tell that the failure was what I expected.
So I may have silenced quite a few dark green squares, but I'm not
sure that what I did was meaningful.

Also, an aside, it appears that OSL's gcc-3_3-darwin and BGDX's
gcc-3_3-apple are identical.  weren't we trying to avoid duplicate
testing?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com