From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-01 16:18:11
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Jueves, Febrero 1, 2007 9:55 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] boost_unit_test_framework cannot be built
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > These should be marked as expected failures and happily ignored.
> > Boost.Test supports this compiler only up to the level required
> > by the boost regression tests. No libraries were using DLL
> > version of Boost.Test with this compiler before 1.34 and
> > accordingly couldn't expect it to start working.
> > I've looked on the workaround proposed. It looks more like a hack.
> > And all that essentially for nothing - Boost.Test do not intend
> > to support DLL build for this compiler. I'd rather keep the
> code clean.
> Thank you for clarification.
Hello Gennadiy and Roland,
I concur the proposed workaround is ugly as sin, and given
your maintenance policy regarding MSVC 6.0, it makes perfect
sense to refrain from trying to fix the problem. What I wonder
is, instead of marking these as expected failures, couldn't we
modify the Jamfile.v2 so as to not run any test in DLL mode
for this compiler?
I know close to zero about B.Bv2, but the Jamfile.v2 used for
these tests has a rule called test-btl-lib that, maybe, could
be added something like
to always force static linking. (Hope Volodya or someone
knowledgeable about B.Bv2 can validate the syntax.)
IMHO forcing static for MSVC 6.5 is much better than simply
marking those tests as expected failiures, since the
*intrisinc* functionality being tested (boost_check_equal
etc.) *does* work for this compiler.
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
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