From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-15 12:25:36
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:50:53 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
> troy d. straszheim wrote:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> troy d. straszheim wrote:
> > I gotta say, this is really time-intensive work... I wonder if running
> > regressions "by default" in both debug and release mode might not be
> > good practice... It could be better to try to catch things like this on
> > the way in.
> It would be good to do, but it will take some work because the tests
> are not all currently designed to work in release "mode." Many of
> them use assert() and other constructs that are switched off by NDEBUG.
I'm sure that's true, but what's the percentage of tests actually affected?
Some libraries don't have these constraints and could benefit from the release
mode tests. Here's a couple pointers to some previous disucssion on this
subject of regression testing options.
Of course, as usual, the problem with any additions and changes is we need
volunteers to step up and do the work. I set up and then stepped back from
running regressions since Martin seemed to have Linux well covered. But I
might be willing to run some release-mode Linux regression tests if that would
help. Only thing is we probably need some tweaks to the config or regression
scripts to allow this?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk