From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-20 10:52:18
Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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
> 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.
That's great, but I just don't think it's reasonable to try to make
changes in the codebase to support it before this release. It
requires a thorough review of all tests.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk