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
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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk