Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-12 15:59:48

Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:

>>There are at least three drawbacks to this approach:
>>
>>1. "something is wrong" is all the information you get from
>>    a failing test. Esp. you'll likely see only one of several
>>    problems related to a failing test program. The next
>>    problem will only become visible after the first problem
>>    has been fixed.
> 
> 
> This is not necessarily true. If one uses Boost Unit test framework you most
> probably get all the errors in one shot.

To clarify: I'm talking about compile time errors. Those
worry me at lot more than runtime errors .

>>2. Some tests are known to fail for certain compilers.
>>    If those tests are joined with other tests then we'll
>>    lose information about these other tests.
> 
> 
> If it runtime errors you could rely on "expected errors" feature. You are
> right for compile time errors, though one could try to ifdef part of test
> program.

I think #ifdeffing around known failures would already
help with the existing tests. However, I'd prefer
those compiler version checks to be in the build
system.

Regards,
m