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 We could also go back to an arrangement in which only outdated tests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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk