Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-31 10:39:55

At 07:00 AM 8/30/2001, John Maddock wrote:

>>How about if the assumptions are made conditional depending on whether
>official regression test is in progress? During a regression test, be
>optimistic; otherwise, assume no change (nothing fixed, nothing broken by
>new version).
>This will keep the configuration as up to as the regression testers' tool
>suites, which I expect will be on the leading edge of stable tool
> The official regression testers would set a compiler switch like
>-DBOOST_REGRESSION_TEST. Regular end users running the regression test
>sanity would probably not be interested in having the regression test
>because their tool suite is too new, so I would expect that the default
>the regression portion of the build system would be to _not_ turn on such
>regression flag.
>I like that, or maybe BOOST_STRICT or something - in fact I would be in
>favour of having a #error in that case - that way the regression tester
>knows that the config regression tests need running again. Provided of
>course that this doesn't impose too much of a burden on a few people :-(

I like BOOST_STRICT, although I haven't given it a lot of thought.

I also like John's #error suggestion. I'm often in a pretty mindless mode
when I run the Win32 regression tests, but I do look at the resulting table
and if every test for a compiler failed I would certainly look at the log
and realize the need to reconfigure.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at