"John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> That test seems to not compile. A test that is supposed to not link
>> fails if it doesn't even get to the link stage.
>>
>> Why is this test labelled link-fail?
>> I don't know. Jeremy?
>
> That's not the meaning of the original link-fail test: we started
> off with compile-fail, but because some compilers don't instantiate
> templates until link time, we had to introduce link-fail to mean:
> "either this doesn't compile, or it compiles but doesn't link".
> Obviously the meaning got lost somewhere.
I intentionally changed it because it seemed as though a test which
was supposed to fail to link, but which fails to compile should not be
deemed a success. I think I did this by analogy with run-fail, where
we were masking some actual compile-time failures which should not
have been registered as successes.
Of course we seem to have no tests which are really expected to fail
linking anymore...
> BTW I could use an equivalent run-fail test for boost-config,
> meaning: "this file either doesn't compile, link, or run", which is
> of course the opposite of the current run-fail. So a better naming
> convention is required all round :-)
Wow, that sounds like a pretty unreliable test. There are so many
ways things can go wrong, and you want to accept any of them?
Maybe we need some platform/compiler-dependent configuration which
chooses the appropriate criterion for success.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
