From: Thomas Matelich (sosedada_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-07 18:36:54
Ullrich Koethe wrote:
> Thomas Matelich wrote:
> > I've just looked over unittest.h. It provides more structure than test_tools.hpp, a nice job of
> > obtaining the minimal xUnit functionality. I think, considering boost's opinions of compiler
> > support, the setjmp/longjmp and can't catch signals version should be able to be eliminated.
> I don't see how the setjmp/longjmp version could be elimiated (it
> probably needs some portability additions, though). The "can't-catch
> variant" is present as a last resort for compilers that don't support a
> mechanism to catch signals. I've found catching of signals very useful
> to quickly locate out-of-bounds access to an array and the like. Without
> the setjmp/longjmp, the test propgram would just crash without giving
> further information about what happened.
Once again I prove my ignorance, my apologies.
-- Thomas O Matelich Senior Software Designer Zetec, Inc. sosedada_at_[hidden] tmatelich_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk