From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-03 19:39:33
At 09:56 AM 9/3/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>In trying to be virtuous and test everything compiled in strict mode as I
>write it, I am finding myself thwarted by BOOST minimal_test otherwise
>excellent test system.
>I aim to compile and test all my code with MSVC 7.1 in strict mode
>no language extensions and warning level 4).
>But in practice this is impossible using the minimal_test.cpp
>because #include also compiles Windows specific structured exception
>handling modules like winNT.h and these require MS extensions to
>compile - otherwise zillions of errors.
>It is possible to avoid this by compiling these modules separately with
>extensions enabled, building a library, then to compile MY
modules >strictly, and then linking to the library, but this is a bit more
>cumbersome than minimal_testing.
>This problem will also apply to all testing of Boost library items using
>the minimal test if we try to raise the code quality bar to 'strict'
>Is there any easier way round this so that minimal_test can be used
>linking with a library?
If Gennadiy can somehow make boost/test/minimal.hpp (and dependencies) work
/Za, that's great. But he is already providing a full object-library based
solution, as well as the header implemented solution. Not to mention three
separate levels of functionality (execution tools, test tools, full unit
test). I'd hate to see added complexity to solve a problem that can already
be dealt with just by using the object-library version of the tools.
Minimal test was designed to be just that - minimal. It isn't expected to
be useful in as wide a range of uses as the library as a whole.
Just my 2 cents...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk