[type_traits] Borland 2006 tests
I am working for bcbboost, and I have begun making regression test, going from basics upwards. I have found (with my current configuration) therer *hundreds* of type_traits library tests that fail. I am trying to find a solution to those, but I cannot keep from wondering, was BCB6 also failing, and it is not important? Was it failing and nobody noticed? Am I failing to see the evident, and all my work process is poisoned form the beginning? To give an example, remove_const fails for the following cases: 2: volatile -> volatile 3: const volatile -> volatile 7: *volatile -> *volatile 8: *const volatile -> *volatile 13: volatile[2] -> volatile[2] As I have seen on other threads, there might be an issue with the order of quialifications, so maybe the soltunio is to redefine the test macros, but I hope someone will give me some idea to continue with minimum effort. TIA, bes regards, Zara
Zara wrote:
I am working for bcbboost, and I have begun making regression test, going from basics upwards.
I have found (with my current configuration) therer *hundreds* of type_traits library tests that fail. I am trying to find a solution to those, but I cannot keep from wondering, was BCB6 also failing, and it is not important? Was it failing and nobody noticed? Am I failing to see the evident, and all my work process is poisoned form the beginning?
If you are talking about the regression tests available in 1.33.1 the current results for bcbboost CVS are the same for BCB2006 and BCB6, about 50 test passed and 17 failed. You can browse the results here: http://bcbboost.sourceforge.net/test/current/cs-win32.html Cheers, Nicola Musatti
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:21:35 +0100, Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Zara wrote:
I am working for bcbboost, and I have begun making regression test, going from basics upwards.
I have found (with my current configuration) therer *hundreds* of type_traits library tests that fail. I am trying to find a solution to those, but I cannot keep from wondering, was BCB6 also failing, and it is not important? Was it failing and nobody noticed? Am I failing to see the evident, and all my work process is poisoned form the beginning?
If you are talking about the regression tests available in 1.33.1 the current results for bcbboost CVS are the same for BCB2006 and BCB6, about 50 test passed and 17 failed. You can browse the results here: http://bcbboost.sourceforge.net/test/current/cs-win32.html
Thank's for the link, I had not noticed it. BTW, does this mena we must not try to pass the tests, they are impossible to pass? Because if Borland is unable to pass the type_traits test (at least the non-tricky ones), then many other libraries won't work. Checking the results: I find is_union is markes 'Pass'g, but it is simply disconnected with a warning, it still seems so. I will test my config, as is_class fails on my tests. And with my config tricy_is_enum is 'Pass', not 'Fail' regards, Zara
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:21:35 +0100, Nicola Musatti <Nicola.Musatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Zara wrote:
I am working for bcbboost, and I have begun making regression test, going from basics upwards.
I have found (with my current configuration) therer *hundreds* of type_traits library tests that fail. I am trying to find a solution to those, but I cannot keep from wondering, was BCB6 also failing, and it is not important? Was it failing and nobody noticed? Am I failing to see the evident, and all my work process is poisoned form the beginning?
If you are talking about the regression tests available in 1.33.1 the current results for bcbboost CVS are the same for BCB2006 and BCB6, about 50 test passed and 17 failed. You can browse the results here: http://bcbboost.sourceforge.net/test/current/cs-win32.html
Cheers, Nicola Musatti
<Addendum to my last message> tricky_is_enum I do not know if it is 'Pass' or 'Fail', I have detected a bug in my regression test fixture, and it was not tested. Zara
participants (2)
-
Nicola Musatti -
Zara