Re: [boost] Factoring out Test Library wrapstrstream

From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 12:41:17

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
To: "'Boost mailing list'" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Factoring out Test Library wrapstrstream

> > > #include <boost/test/included/test_exec_monitor.hpp>
> > >
> > All right... I totally missed this...
> > I thought 'fully included' meant something else. Sorry.
> > (btw: I couldn't find this on the Docs... perhaps it's just me)
>
> See here for example:
>
http://www.boost.org/libs/test/doc/test_exec_monitor.htm#MonitorCompilation
>
Aha! My docs are outdated. The last part were it mentions the header is
missing in my local copy.

 >
> > NOTE:
> > I tried to use this method with the numeric library test.
> > Using bcc55, I encountered the following error on "test_tools.cpp":
> > __strcmp__ is not a member of std
> >
> > I had to add the following to that source file, right before
> > the opening
> > namespace boost:
> >
> > # ifdef __BORLANDC__
> > #pragma intrinsic -strcmp
> > # endif
>
> test_tools.cpp contains:
> # ifdef BOOST_NO_STDC_NAMESPACE
> namespace std { using ::strcmp; using ::strncmp; using ::strlen; }
> # endif
>
> does not the symbol BOOST_NO_STDC_NAMESPACE is get defined?
>
The problem is that BCC, by default, uses an 'intrinsic' version of strcmp
which is not a real function thus it is not located in std. Declaring strcmp
inside std doesn't help.
The workaround is to either use unqualified calls to strcmp or to disable
its intrinsic version. My patch does the latter.

> > I know there are Jamfiles for bcc, but I can't get them to work.
> > The problem is not with the compilers but with bjam on cygwin on Win98
> > On this platform, bjam produces command lines longer than the
> > shell limit so
> > the compiler gets its input trimmed off.
>
> Did you report this to Boost.Build guys?
Yes.
> Is there any means to enlarge this
> limit?
>
No. The limits is right inside Windows (or actually, right inside the DOS
shell used by Windows)

> >
> > Did you effectively used bjam on your computer to actually
> > build the Test
> > Framework with those windows compilers? What platform are you
> > using for
> > this?
>
> I am compiling on Win2k and WinXP using bjam and tools for cygwin+gcc,
> Borland command line compiler, msvc with native stl, msvc with stlport.
> I never really tested on win98. I thought it's already forgotten by now.
At
> least for reallife usage.
>
I see. Perhaps the command line limits is fixed on >Win98.
There are some domains for which old OS versions last far longer than
expected.
We have tons of customers using Win98 (and even Win95!).
Besides, we still use Win98 as the development enviroment mostly in order to
avoid migration costs (specially hardware related... you now how the next
Windows always requires the next generation hardware to keep the
performance).

Fernando Cacciola