Re: [boost] Review: Config system

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 
an
 >official regression test is in progress?  During a regression test, be
 >optimistic; otherwise, assume no change (nothing fixed, nothing broken by 
a
 >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 
versions.
 > The official regression testers would set a compiler switch like
 >-DBOOST_REGRESSION_TEST.  Regular end users running the regression test 
for
 >sanity would probably not be interested in having the regression test 
fail
 >because their tool suite is too new, so I would expect that the default 
in
 >the regression portion of the build system would be to _not_ turn on such 
a
 >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.

--Beman