Re: [boost] [filesystem][program_options][serialization][test] fromcomp.lang.c++.moderated

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-12 18:42:00

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:ufyjenbyp.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>>> 2. Opting to ignore system signals will cause halt for regression 
>>>>> testing
>>>>> in
>>>>> some cases (unless we change the setup explicitly)
>>>>
>>>> No, it's the other way round. The UB causes halts in regression testing.
>>>> I experienced dozens of these incidences. As I said, I wasted days of
>>>> CPU and human time on this problem.
>>>>
>>>> How does not mapping a signal to exceptions and letting the process die
>>>> instead cause halt for regression testing?
>>>
>>> Because some compiler would show dialog window for example. Unfortunately
>>> there is no silver bullet here. One will have to deal with stalling
>>> regression tests one way or another. Which case has less incidents is an
>>> open question.
>>
>> In the absence of other data, it seems to me that Martin's report
>> should be given more weight.
>
> What do you mean by "absence of other data"? I know for sure that several NT 
> compilers will produce dialog window.

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood the argument.  Isn't there a way of encoding
this information in the library and allowing tests to specify a
default mode, e.g.:

   "By default, I am being run as part of an automated test suite and
   should not stall the process"

or 

   "By default I am being run by hand..."

maybe this mode specification thing is even unnecessary, I don't know.
But if you know which platforms and compilers will benefit from
mapping signals, it seems to me you should only do it there.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com