Boost logo

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
> determine.

Yes, and these need to be renamed. As it has been numerously stated
here, having a toolset name conforming to our standard naming
( is
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 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

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at