On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:53:39 +0100, "John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
Nope, my pet hate at present is http://tinyurl.com/jqe7j where the results from one test (an expected failure, marked up) are being listed under a completely different test :-(
Argh :-(
John, while you are here, I saw that you didn't reply about identifying min/max guideline violations in comments being difficult via regexes. That made me think twice, as I supposed it was pretty easy to do with sub_matches or alternation. The basis seems to be "//.*$" for single-line comments and "/\*.*?\*/" for multi-line ones. What am I missing? :-)
Actually not much, try "//[^\n\r]*" for single lines though.
Thanks for the hint. After a night (or two? not sure :-)) of sleep I decided for the solution indicated in the thread "Inspect Tool Update (was: Boost regression testing status)". Maybe an Inspect V2 could be based on Wave to do full tokenization and preprocessing of the inspected source files. About the regression test mess, dynamic_bitset is not listed in the report, but has some "red" failures on compilers which I don't think were tested before (which I've discovered by chance); and cases where the same compiler passes or not depending on the test runner (e.g. VC7). Honestly, even if all this has an explanation, are such tests useful? -- [ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]