Boost C++ Libraries: Ticket #4776: Mods to search_n test to show msvc failure

attachment set

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:45:21 GMT

attachment → test_range_search_n.patch

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:18:19 GMT

Here's what it generates...

Running 1 test case...
unknown location(0): fatal error in "test_search_n": C:\Program Files\VS8\VC\INCLUDE\list(213) : Assertion failed: list iterator not dereferencable
..\libs\range\test\algorithm_test\search_n.cpp(34): last checkpoint: Pre-std: value: 9; n:2
*** 1 failure detected in test suite "Master Test Suite"

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:26:21 GMT

A more complete patch & results...

Running 1 test case...
unknown location(0): fatal error in "test_search_n": C:\Program Files\VS8\VC\INCLUDE\list(213) : Assertion failed: list iterator not dereferencable
..\libs\range\test\algorithm_test\search_n.cpp(34): last checkpoint: Pre-std: class std::list<int,class std::allocator<int> >; value: 9; n:2; size:9
*** 1 failure detected in test suite "Master Test Suite"

attachment set

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:26:42 GMT

attachment → test_range_search_n_v2.patch

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:41:36 GMT

Also, can this mode of failure for relevant platforms be marked as an "expected" failure, allowing the entire range library to not be marked as fail/yellow on the main matrix?

severity changed

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:48:12 GMT

severity Optimization → Regression

status, severity changed

Neil Groves — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:52:54 GMT

status new → assigned
severity Regression → Problem

I'm going to tackle this slightly differently. There isn't an "expected" failure of Boost.Range this is unfortunately an expected failure of the Visual C++ standard library as you have described. Hence it is misleading to make my Boost.Range test fail since the algorithm actually works. This test result should pass. I shall modify the test to check for the correct result rather than test for equivalence to the standard library implementation.

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 19:36:08 GMT

Excellent. A passing test is much more valuable than an explained failure.

I think it's very useful/helpful (and interesting) to see the standard library failure as my patch shows, and would love it to be kept around for the record, but if you can't find a place for it, I understand.

Neil Groves — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:13:38 GMT

I have altered the implementation as proposed earlier. It no longer uses the standard library implementation in either the core implementation or in the test. I shall monitor the progress on the trunk regression tests before a subsequent merge to the release branch.

status, milestone changed; resolution set

Neil Groves — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:14:51 GMT

status assigned → closed
resolution → fixed
milestone To Be Determined → Boost 1.46.0