From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-20 07:58:47
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Basically you're correct on all of this.
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>After having run two cycles of tests for Boost with the
>>mingw-3_4_2-stlport-5_0 configuration and having it take more than 14
>>hours on a 2.2Ghz+1GB machine, most of that in the Boost.Serialization
>>library[*]. And reading some of the recent discussion about the desire
>>to expand testing to include cross-version compatibility and
>>cross-compiler compatibility, and hence having the number of tests
>>multiply possibly exponentially. I am seriously concerned that we are
>>going in the wrong direction when it comes to structuring tests.
> This was the basis of my suggestion that we run a complete set only very
I thought that was given. Sorry if I didn't make that clear when
suggesting widening the current strategy. Clearly this isn't for
> So there are a number of things that might be looked into
> a) Reduce the combinations of the serializaton tests.
> b) Don't use libraries to test other libraries. That is don't re-test one
> library (.e.g. serialization) just because some other library that it
> depends upon (e.g. mpl) has changed.
> c) Define a two separate test Jamfiles -
> i) normal test
> ii) carpet bombing mode
> e) Maybe normal mode can be altered on frequent basis when I just want to
> test a new feature. or just one test.
> f) Include as part of the installation instructions for users an exhaustive
> test mode. That is a user how downloads and installs the package would have
> the option of producing the whole test results on his own platform and
> sending in his results. This would have a couple of advantages
> i) It would be sure that all new platforms are tested
> ii) I would ensure that the user has everyting installed correctly
a) I haven't thought about yet. I agree that the scheme could be better
thought out, but it looks tricky to do it right, and my big issue right
now, for a client, is to be able to test platform-independent archives
(from different architectures) against each other in carpet-bomb mode.
Since it turns out to be trivial to also accommodate testing different
boost versions and compilers, I'm offering it up.
b) is out of my hands.
c) i) I have refactored the "normal tests" in places to support the
existence of a carpet bomb mode, without lengthening the current "normal
mode" tests. I've also been switching tests over to the autoregistering
unit test framework as I go.
c) ii) I have been working hard on. Carpet bombing is controlled by an
environment variable (which I am considering changing to
BOOST_SERIALIZATION_CARPET_BOMB). The tarball I posted recently is now
very out-of-date, I have a lot of changes and have noticed a few
additional things. For instance one needs a second class A that can be
serialized by platform-independent archives, and the build environment
will have to do this switching. Some primitives in the existent class A
need to be removed in the platform independent case, and the use of
std::rand() has to go, as you won't get the same stream of numbers on
all platforms, so you use boost::random RNGs, and you need to be sure
that you (re)seed the RNGs at appropriate times.
d) If there's a carpet bombing mode, what do you call normal mode?
e) Sounds convenient.
f) Whatever I come up with for c) ii) should be pretty easy to package
like that, if you guys actually want to use it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk