Hi Gennadiy, On Tuesday, 6. November 2012 13:36:11 Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Jürgen Hunold <jhunold <at> gmx.eu> writes:
Interesting. Bug or feature. Can you post a minimal testcase to the Boost.Build ML ?
That's easy. Rename test_datasets_src into test_datasets in boost.test testing directory change Jamfile accordingly and try to build it.
Noted. Thanks.
I can probably get the same result by ifdefing the code, but I'd rather have it marked unsupported in regression table instead of fake pass.
That is the way the go.
Unfortunately, there are only two ways to archive this: 1) special toolsets 2) an extra feature for different standards.
I am not sure how is this relevant. All I want is to say This is expected to fail if we are building on configuration which does not have this and this feature. Nothing to do with build system. Should I just tweak expected failures file after that and that's it?
Well, that is always an option, but should be the last. A clean Boost.Build based solution should work better in the long term. Especially if c++17 et. al come into play. Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! * voice: ++49 4257 300 ! Fährstraße 1 * fax : ++49 4257 300 ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen * jhunold@gmx.eu ! Germany