Boost Testing :
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-08 23:38:11
David Abrahams writes:
> 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,
Do you mean the actual compilation error? There shouldn't be one,
since it's a "compile-fail" test.
> For another, there are a number of toolsets in the report, such as
> "gcc" and "mingw," whose version numbers are hard or impossible to
Yes, and these need to be renamed. As it has been numerously stated
here, having a toolset name conforming to our standard naming
essential to being able to mark up things properly.
Beman, Martin, Toon, could you please address this issue for the
toolsets you are testing with? (Please see
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.testing/877 for the
> 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.
Did you check it in? The markup in the CVS still uses '<toolset
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering