From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 09:34:11
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> David Abrahams writes:
>>Stefan Slapeta <stefan_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>Stefan Slapeta wrote:
>>>The same seems to be valid for iterator/lvalue_concept_fail
>>Very few of the Boost regression tests are meant to be run in "release
>>mode" (i.e. with NDEBUG defined). Many in fact use <cassert>. I
>>don't think it's reasonable to expect any particular result from Boost
>>tests run in this way, nor is it reasonable to expect library authors
>>to adjust their tests at this late date.
> I'm having the same sentiments. Let's concentrate on what _has_ to work.
I personally disagree. I think it's rather presumptious of us to think
that compiling debug versions is what "has to work". Most people using
Boost will be compiling their programs in release mode at some point.
How can we give users software that has not undergone at least some
minor testing in the most common configuration? At least for me, if it
doesn't work in release mode, it's unusable.
I personally will continue to run the cw-8.3 release tests as that's one
of the important platforms for me. And I will continue to find, and
hopefully fix, error that come up from the difference the code optimizer
impacts on the functioning of the code. And yes I have found and fixed
some number of bugs because of this effort.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk