Alisdair Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> ...although now the only expected failure tests we have left are
>> compile-fail. So I don't know what to do with the others.
>
> Could we introduce a third result. Pass and fail we know, 'error' would
> the test could not actually be run. This would reflect a compile fail
> for link/runtime tests, missing/corrupt files for compile tests (perhaps
> due to CVS corruption) and probably a couple more corner cases I haven't
> thought about yet.
Those get flagged as "fail" right now. I think introducing more
distinctions might be difficult, though I'm not certain. I'll take a
look at it.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
