[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-683?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12553812
 ] 

Martin Sebor commented on STDCXX-683:
-------------------------------------

Requirements on Markups

1. Location.

The markups must be in the form of human-readable and editable text stored in a 
location that can be easily and intuitively associated with each component 
(currently, example, locale, or test). One obvious location is the source code 
for each component itself. There, the markups could take the form of comments 
that could be easily found by the test harness. Another convenient location is 
a separate file with the same base name but a different suffix than the 
component itself. Yet another possibility is storing all markups in a single 
text file and with the name of the component as the key. The implementation 
should be such so as to make it easy to switch from one location to the next if 
it turns out to be convenient.
   

2. Format.

The format of the markups must be easy to read and write and make it possible 
to easily express precise constraints involving the operating system and its 
version, the compiler and its version, the library configuration, and the 
expected status. It must be possible to set more than one constraint for each 
component, and it must be possible for a single constraint to refer to more 
than one platform or configuration.

One possible format is to use relational operators and boolean logic. For 
example, to refer to XLC++ 7.0.0.9 on AIX 5.3 and prior, the expression might 
look something like this: os==AIX && (os_major<5 || os_major==5 && os_minor<=3) 
&& compiler==XLC && compiler_major==7 && compiler_minor==0 && compiler_micro==0 
&& compiler_patch==9.

Another possible format is to adopt a conveniton similar to the GNU 
cpu-vendor-os triple produced by config.guess (an example of such a triple is 
i386-redhat-linux or sparc-sun-solaris2.9). In our case, the GNU convention 
would need to be modified and extended to include the compiler and the library 
configuration and might look something like this: 
cpu-vendor-os-compiler-configuration. We could then use shell globbing to 
implement matching. For example, the following two patterns would have to be 
used at the same time in order to refer to a 15D configuration of the library 
build with XLC++ 7.0.0.9 on AIX 5.3 and prior: *-ibm-aix5.[0-3]-xlc7.0.0.9-15D 
*-ibm-aix[1-4].*-xlc7.0.0.9-15D The leading asterisk indicates no preference 
for the CPU component.


> implement notion of expected failures in the test suite
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STDCXX-683
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-683
>             Project: C++ Standard Library
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Test Driver, Tests
>    Affects Versions: 4.2.0
>            Reporter: Martin Sebor
>            Assignee: Martin Sebor
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: codes.html, xcodes.html
>
>
> Tests (or examples) that fail for known reasons that we haven't been able to 
> deal with should be distinguished from failures that haven't been analyzed 
> yet. For example, an example program that fails to compile on an older target 
> platform because of a compiler bug that we can't find a simple/elegant 
> workaround should be flagged as such in the test results. Similarly, a test 
> that fails one or more assertions due to compiler or libc bugs on a specific 
> platform (or a set of platforms) that we are unable to work around should be 
> reported as such.
> This is important in order to reduce the currently fairly large number of 
> unexpected failures and to be able to make changes without having to worry 
> about regressions as much.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to