From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-14 11:22:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> Douglas Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> |concept_check|
>> class_concept_fail_expected: borland-5.6.4 borland-5.8.2 borland-5.8.2 msvc-6.5 msvc-6.5 msvc-7.0
>> stl_concept_covering: borland-5.8.2 borland-5.8.2 gcc-3.3.6 gcc-3.4.5_linux gcc-3.4.5_linux_x86_64 gcc-4.0.3_linux gcc-4.1.0_linux gcc-4.1.0_linux_x86_64 gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc
>
> Jeremy Siek checked in expected failures markup for all these tests
> well over one week ago. The markup looks OK to me, but the failures
> are still showing up. What's going on here?
I don't think marking them as expected to fail on all platforms is the
way to go. I looked into the one that seemingly is causing one of the
stl_concept_covering tests:
{
#if defined(__GNUC__)
typedef less_than_op_first_archetype<> FT;
typedef less_than_op_second_archetype<> T;
#elif defined(__KCC)
// The KAI version of this uses a one-argument less-than function
// object.
typedef less_than_comparable_archetype<> T;
typedef convertible_to_archetype<T> FT;
#endif
forward_iterator_archetype<FT> fi;
T value(dummy_cons);
fi = std::lower_bound(fi, fi, value);
}
This looks very strange to me. Only __GNUC__ or __KCC ever will be able
to pass. What about other compilers, or nothing of both defined? Why not
simply disable the test in these cases?
Roland