Re: [boost] Re: Regression Tests, Boost.Serialization

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 20:55:05

David Abrahams writes:
> Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> It would be nice if we could drop serialization on compilers that
>>> just aren't
>>> going to work.
>>
>> Right. I once suggested that this should be
>> implemented for all libraries. Its nonsense
>> to run the tests for libraries which are marked
>> as non-working for certain compilers. This should
>> be a feature of the build system.
>> We don't have that feature, yet. I'm not aware
>> of anyone working on it. 
>
> I'd be willing to try, but I think we might get more bang-for-the-buck
> if I set things up so that failed tests don't run until they're
> outdated.  

That won't help with clean runs, though, and it would be really
wonderful to have them speed up a little.

> That part can be done entirely within Boost.Build rather
> than trying to figure out how to combine some XML markup with
> it... 

I think duplicating markup in Jamfiles or, preferrably, near them (in
some form) won't be too bad. E.g., in the library "test" directory we
could have a simple "unusable-tools.jam" which could go like this:

unusable-tools = borland-5.5.1  msvc  msvc-stlport ;

If we can do something like that, it's even not necessarily a
duplication -- for XSL reports, we can always walk through the library
directories, collect the markup and transform it into an XML for later
processing. In fact, we already to something like this anyway.

> unless something in the Jamfile that causes the test to be
> skipped for certain toolsets is enough for you.

It's the opposite -- a toolset marked as unusable should be
skipped. 

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering