From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-04 03:06:39
Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
>>I've a similiar problem with BOOST_CHECK family, but I think
>>can be different: provide a means to convert failed test into
>>failure. This way I can conveniently debug. Currently, I have to
>>replace BOOST_CHECK with assert manually, to find where the
>>Gennadiy, what do you think?
> I do not understand exactly how switching to assert would help you locate
> the failure point. If you going to run it under debugger you as well could
> just set a break point on failed assertion. If you going to analize the core
> using debugger, why not run it under debugger in a first place. If you
> expect to get a location from the assert output - it will be not better than
> test tools one.
The situation is that I have a consice description of test cases (a vector of
C structures) and a function which iterates over that vector, doing
BOOST_CHECK in some places. If I place a breakpoint on the failed BOOST_CHECK,
then that breakpoint will trigger many times before the actual error happens.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk