Peter Dimov writes:
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Peter Dimov writes:
"Expected" turns red failures into yellow failures, right?
Green, actually, but with a link to a corresponding note/explanation.
Can we make/leave them yellow? :-)
They are going to be yellow on the user-level library report.
The tests fail, after all. How can a failure be green?
Well, it still says "fail" :).
Maybe we need a way to mark a test "yellow failure, does not affect overall greenness".
That's basically the current meaning of the "expected failures" markup; the expected failures rendered as green on the developer report because basically, once the failures are marked, they become of the same interest to you as the passing tests -- that is, of no interest.
If so, and the failure is indeed a compiler bug,
That's basically what I wanted to know -- is it?
I don't know, but the two tests do pass on 8.0 based on the report. Only 7.1 fails. The bind_cv_test failure sure looks like a compiler bug (or an artifact of some bug compatibility mode) because it seems that the compiler invokes the non-const operator() on a const function object.
OK, thanks! -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering