Update explicit-failures-markup.xml

[skip ci]

1 files changed, 39 insertions, 97 deletions

diff --git a/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml b/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
index 30d309f9fa..988f675d8f 100644
--- a/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
+++ b/status/explicit-failures-markup.xml
@@ -862,17 +862,20 @@
     <!-- 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
@@ -881,7 +884,7 @@
             </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
@@ -896,7 +899,6 @@
         <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"/>
@@ -926,9 +928,7 @@
             <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
@@ -936,53 +936,12 @@
             </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
@@ -992,11 +951,8 @@
         </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
@@ -1008,12 +964,8 @@
         </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
@@ -1023,15 +975,6 @@
             </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="destructor-decl_entry_inv_ends"/>
@@ -1050,8 +993,7 @@
             <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
@@ -1060,8 +1002,22 @@
             </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.
@@ -1071,7 +1027,7 @@
         <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.
@@ -1081,7 +1037,7 @@
         </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.
@@ -1096,26 +1052,12 @@
             <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>
 
     <!-- coroutine -->