Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 10:43:48


Rene Rivera wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>> David Abrahams writes:
>>> 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 think we have to distinguish between the 1.32 feature set and the
desired feature set for future boost versions.

As far as 1.32 goes I think it is obvious that release mode testing is
not a current boost feature and therefore it should not be required for
1.32. At least if we want to ship anytime soon.

In terms of the general boost development I do agree that release mode
testing makes sense and that we should try to make it work for the next

> 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.

IIUC nobody said that release mode testing should be stopped. It is a
good thing, but not all testcode allows it yet.


Thomas Witt

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at