<!-- contract -->
<library name="contract">
<mark-unusable>
- <toolset name="gcc-6"/>
+ <toolset name="clang-darwin-ubsan"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
- Tests fail to link on this compiler because of a bug in its STL
- implementation (undefined references to `operator delete`, see
- https://tracker.crystax.net/issues/1403).
+ On this compiler, Boost.Function gives a run-time error when
+ calling non-nullary lambdas as used by the tests of this library
+ to program contract failure handlers.
+ It might still be possible to use this library on this compiler
+ using default contract failure handlers or programming custom
+ contract failure handlers but without using non-nullary lambdas
+ (however, the authors did not confirm that).
</note>
</mark-unusable>
<mark-unusable>
- <toolset name="gcc-3.4c+"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.1c+"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.2c+"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-3.*"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-4.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
Even tests that do not use C++11 lambda functions fail on this
compiler because it incorrectly attempts an extra copy when
</note>
</mark-unusable>
<mark-unusable>
- <toolset name="msvc-7.1"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-7.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
Even tests that do not use C++11 lambda functions fail on this
compiler because of a number of issues (Boost.Exception is not
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="disable-audit"/>
<toolset name="gcc-4.9"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-5"/>
<toolset name="clang-linux-3.6"/>
<toolset name="clang-linux-3.7"/>
<toolset name="clang-linux-3.8"/>
<test name="public_function-throwing_post"/>
<test name="public_function-virtual"/>
<test name="public_function-virtual_branch"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-4.0~gnu++11"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-4.0~gnu++14"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-4.0~gnu++1z"/>
+ <toolset name="clang-linux-*~gnu++*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because of a libcxxrt bug on Clang for FreeBSD
which causes `std::uncaught_exception` to not work properly on
re-throws (see https://github.com/pathscale/libcxxrt/issues/49).
</note>
</mark-expected-failures>
- <mark-expected-failures>
- <test name="specify-auto_error"/>
- <test name="specify-auto_pre_error"/>
- <test name="specify-auto_pre_old_error"/>
- <test name="specify-auto_pre_old_post_error"/>
- <test name="specify-auto_pre_old_post_except_error"/>
- <toolset name="intel-linux-linux"/>
- <toolset name="clang-darwin*"/>
- <toolset name="clang-darwin*"/>
- <toolset name="clang-darwin*"/>
- <toolset name="*1z*"/>
- <note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
- This test fails because C++17 guarantees no copies on function
- returns by value (so this library can only give run-time errors,
- and not compile-time errors, if auto declarations are misused
- instead of using the `boost::contract::check` type explicitly on
- C++17 compilers).
- </note>
- </mark-expected-failures>
- <mark-expected-failures>
- <test name="public_function-max_args"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args0"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args0_no_tva"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args1"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args1_no_tva"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args2"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args2_no_tva"/>
- <test name="public_function-max_args_no_tva"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-6.1c+"/>
- <note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
- It is not clear why this test fails but when trying to install
- MinGW GCC 6.1 using `mingw-get` it says that such a compiler
- version does not exist (so this issue could not be investigated
- any further).
- This is fixed in MinGW GCC 6.2.
- </note>
- </mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="old-if_copyable"/>
<test name="old-if_copyable_macro"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.7.2"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.7~c++11"/>
- <toolset name="qcc-4.7.3_arm"/>
- <toolset name="qcc-4.7.3_x86"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.6c+"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.7c+"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-10.0"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-11.0"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-4.6*"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-4.7*"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-10.*"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-11.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because this complier does not properly
implement SFINAE giving incorrect errors on substitution
</mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="public_function-protected_error"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-3.0~c++11"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-3.0~gnu11"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-3.0~c++11~O2"/>
- <toolset name="clang-linux-3.0~c++11~warn"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.6c+"/>
+ <toolset name="clang-linux-3.0~*"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-4.6*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because SFINAE on this complier seems to not
fail as it should when a derived class tries to call a
</mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="public_function-virtual_access_multi"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.7.2"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.7~c++11"/>
- <toolset name="qcc-4.7.3_arm"/>
- <toolset name="qcc-4.7.3_x86"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.6c+"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-4.7c+"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-4.6*"/>
+ <toolset name="gcc-4.7*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because this compiler seems to incorrectly check
access level of members in base classes in a context when only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57973).
</note>
</mark-expected-failures>
- <mark-expected-failures>
- <test name="disable-no_post_except_lib"/>
- <toolset name="gcc-8.0.0"/>
- <note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
- GCC 8 has not been released yet so this test might be failing
- because of some work-in-progress aspect of the compiler.
- This test did not fail on GCC 7.
- </note>
- </mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="constructor-throwing_body"/>
<test name="destructor-decl_entry_inv_all"/>
<test name="public_function-throwing_body"/>
<test name="public_function-throwing_body_virtual"/>
<test name="public_function-throwing_body_virtual_branch"/>
- <toolset name="qcc-4.7.3_arm"/>
- <toolset name="qcc-4.7.3_x86"/>
+ <toolset name="qcc-4.7*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because `std::unchaught_exception` seems to
always return zero on this compiler (even if the authors could
online).
</note>
</mark-expected-failures>
+ <mark-expected-failures>
+ <test name="invariant-ifdef"/>
+ <test name="invariant-ifdef_macro"/>
+ <test name="invariant-volatile_error"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-8.*"/>
+ <note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
+ This test fails because this complier seems to dispatch calls
+ incorrectly when both `const` and `const volatile` overloads
+ are present (even if the authors could not find a direct
+ reference to this possible compiler issue online).
+ This is fixed in MSVC 9.0 (but only MSVC 11.0 has adequate
+ lambda function support).
+ </note>
+ </mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="call_if-no_equal_call_if"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-10.0"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-10.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because MSVC 10.0 is not able to properly deduce
a template specialization.
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="constructor-ifdef_macro"/>
<test name="constructor-smoke"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-10.0"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-10.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because of a MSVC 10.0 bug with lambdas within
template class initialization list.
</mark-expected-failures>
<mark-expected-failures>
<test name="destructor-smoke"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-10.0"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-10.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because of a MSVC 10.0 bug for which lambdas
cannot access typedefs declared within classes.
<test name="disable-other_assertions_lib"/>
<test name="disable-other_assertions_prog"/>
<test name="disable-other_assertions_unit"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-10.0"/>
+ <toolset name="msvc-10.*"/>
<note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
This test fails because of an internal MSVC 10.0 compiler bug.
This is fixed in MSVC 11.0.
</note>
</mark-expected-failures>
- <mark-expected-failures>
- <test name="invariant-ifdef"/>
- <test name="invariant-ifdef_macro"/>
- <test name="invariant-volatile_error"/>
- <toolset name="msvc-8.0"/>
- <note author="Lorenzo Caminiti">
- This test fails because this complier seems to dispatch calls
- incorrectly when both `const` and `const volatile` overloads
- are present (even if the authors could not find a direct
- reference to this possible compiler issue online).
- This is fixed in MSVC 9.0 (but only MSVC 11.0 has adequate
- lambda function support).
- </note>
- </mark-expected-failures>
</library>
</explicit-failures-markup>
projects / ceph.git / blobdiff