From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-23 09:56:07
At 10:28 AM 7/23/2002, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>I am working right now on integration bjam-based testing with new test
>One thing I found that list of test is incomplete."format" test
>are missing for example and a lot more.
Yes. We need to do a review to make sure tests aren't omitted.
> Another thing: is there any reason why
>do we test only array1 among all array tests?.
My guess is that dates from the old regression tests, which we tried to
keep minimal because each tests was being built and run every time. With
the bjam based tests, that is no longer an issue.
There used to be some incentive to keep the size of the Status Table
small. But I expect we will switch to reporting only a summary of tests
which pass all compilers, and give a detail report only on those which
warn, fail, or are missing.
> Also as I mentioned in some
>other post, current Jamfile has a problem with function_test. Look into
>table: you have one function test, while in fact Jamfile has two. I
>to create complete list.
Ah! Both were named function_test.cpp. When that happens, the test has to
be given an explicit name.
> Will you be interested in updated status/Jamfile?
Of course! If the changes are extensive, it might be a good idea to send
it to me first for a test on a different machine. If there are just minor
fixes like the function name problem above, I don't see any reason not to
just go ahead and check it in.
By the way, what did you think of the Compiler Status table itself? Did
you find the links helpful?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk