Peter Dimov wrote:
Boris Gubenko wrote:
You mean "<toolset name="*"/> so it unexpectedly passes on gcc-4.3.0_c++0x ?
Yes, I think that this will be best (unless it inhibits testing entirely).
Done. Thanks, Boris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Cc: "Boris Gubenko" <Boris.Gubenko@hp.com> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] marking shared_ptr_move_test known failure
Boris Gubenko wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
[...] In fact you can even mark it a known failure for any compiler since this is probably going to be the right default for new toolsets for quite a while.
You mean "<toolset name="*"/> so it unexpectedly passes on gcc-4.3.0_c++0x ?
Yes, I think that this will be best (unless it inhibits testing entirely). Unfortunately our current infrastructure gives us no easy way to say "only run this test when BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS is defined, else consider it an expected failure". Marking it as expected failure everywhere seems the closest approximation.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost