From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-18 19:23:25
"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Gennadiy Rozental said:
>>> > 1. Boost.Thread with depend on multithreaded version of Boost.Test.
>>> 2. Boost.Test will try to use minimal/basic part of Boost.Thread
>>> > functionality
>>> There's no "minimal/basic part" of Boost.Thread that doesn't need
>> I did not mean that it does not need testing. What I meant is that I
>> will try to use only small part of Boost.Thread functionality.
>> What I propose is that we first check that namely this part is working
>> (It could be part of Boost.Tet or BoostThread unit test)
>> And then move on with rest of your testing.
> Again, how do you "test it is working" if we can't use the Boost.Test
> framework! We're in a catch-22 situation so long as you use Boost.Thread
> in Boost.Test.
You can do it the way programmers have always done it: simple assert.
>>> If I can't rely on it working in my own regression testing, I
>>> can't rely on it being a part of the underlying test framework. I
>>> know this means more work for you, but there's not much to be done
>>> about it. You can sacrifice performance, however, in a testing
>>> framework. So you can probably get by with nothing more than a simple
>>> mutex and a TSS concept with out implicit cleanup, which should be
>>> fairly trivial for you to implement.
>> I would really prefer not to reinvent the wheel with portable
>> implementation of Mutex and TSS.
> I understand you not wanting to do so, but I see no alternative.
I tend to sympathize with Gennadiy's POV here. Writing minimal
portable testing code from scratch is a LOT simpler than trying to do
the same in the domain of threading.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk