Re: [boost] Re: 1.31.0 regressions

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-15 22:25:17

At 11:50 PM 2/12/2004, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
 >David Abrahams writes:
 >> I agree that egregiously long build times for a test make it
 >> prohibitive; those tests need to be fixed.  That has been a particular
 >> problem with the random library for at least a year and a half.
 >>
 >> We could also go back to an arrangement in which only outdated tests
 >> get run again, so tests that failed last time but for which no
 >> dependencies changed wouldn't run again.
 >
 >Please! Similarly, for "clean" runs, implementing Martin's suggestion
 >would make a _huge_ difference:
 >
 >Martin Wille writes:
 >> 2. Not compiling/running tests which are expected to
 >>     fail. We have a mechanism to mark toolsets unsupported
 >>     for certain libraries. However, this markup is applied
 >>     _after_ trying to compile/run the tests. If the
 >>     build system wouldn't even try to run the tests for
 >>     unsupported toolsets then this would also speed up
 >>     a test cycle.

Yes, that would be a big help.

--Beman