Re: [boost] Re: Testing with various compilers [was operators.hpp ...]

From: Reggie Seagraves (reggie_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-15 16:00:47

Beman,
        I could take care of Metrowerks on Mac for you.
                Reggie

At 2:16 PM -0400 6/15/00, Beman Dawes wrote:
>At 07:42 PM 6/15/2000 +1200, Mark Rodgers wrote:
>
>>Perhaps we need to identify "champions" for as many platforms
>>as we can.  Then for the future these people could report back
>>on the compatibility of each library with their platform (perhaps
>>as part of the review process, or after major changes) and each
>>library's documentation could have a reasonably comprehensive
>>compatibility table.
>>
>>As long as the library author provides a comprehensive test suite,
>>and as long as the champion is only expected to report back a
>>success/failure rather than take responsibility for making it work,
>>it shouldn't be too time consuming a task.
>
>I have been thinking about the issue of boost libraries working with
>various compilers from a slightly different perspective.
>
>It would be good practice for me to run a regression test covering as
>many boost libraries and as many compilers as possible before
>updating the web site with modified libraries.  Perhaps automatically
>generate an HTML table for the web site with current compiler
>results.
>
>It would be easy for me to cover the BCB4, BCC5.5, egcs, Metrowerks,
>and Microsoft compilers on Win2K.  A couple of other vendors would
>probably donate compilers if asked.  That leaves Unix/Linux and Mac
>holes, but would at least catch the obvious bugs.
>
>>I'm happy to do this sort of thing for BCB4 and BCC5.5.
>
>What would really be a help is if you (or other members) could come
>up with a test harness design to solve the n*m problem.
>
>IOW, if there are 20 boost test programs which should be compiled and
>run, and there are 12 compiler/std-library combinations, there will
>be 20*12 == 240 compilations and tests.  That's OK.  What isn't OK is
>to have 240 setups to create and maintain.  Instead, a list of the 20
>programs, and 12 separate setups for compilers.  So adding a new test
>program involves just adding to a list.  Adding a new compiler
>likewise just means adding a single compiler setup, regardless of how
>many programs are to be tested.  Setting up a new compiler needs to
>be separate, so it can be done by someone familiar with that
>compiler.
>
>It would also be nice, but not an absolute requirement, if 1)
>programs without dependency changes didn't get recompiled, 2) any
>scripting was portable (by using GNU, perl, or python tools for
>example) so it could be used on other operating systems, 3) an HTML
>table was generated reporting test results, 4) other suggestions from
>experienced multiplatform testers were incorporated.
>
>Any takers?
>
>--Beman
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free, Unlimited Calls Anywhere!
>Conference in the whole family on the same call.
>Let the fights begin!  Visit Firetalk.com - Click below.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/5476/3/_/9351/_/961092832/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------