From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 09:39:00
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams writes:
>> Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>>- bugs in the testing procedure take too long to get fixed
>>>> I think all I can say on this one is said here --
>>> I'm not trying to imply Misha or you wouldn't do enough. However, the
>>> fact that only two people have the knowledge and the access to the
>>> result collection stage of the testing process is a problem in itself.
>> That is worrisome.
> We'll be happy to fill in anybody who is interested. It's not that
>>>>>- incremental testing doesn't work flawlessly
>>>> That's IMO another "top 10" issue that hurts a lot.
>> It's a bit of a problem that when bjam scans for header dependencies
>> it can't preprocess the files, so dependencies created by
>> #include SOME_MACRO()
>> don't get registered.
> What's the problem with doing real preprocessing when something like
> above is detected?
Well, if we could, it would be better to always do real preprocessing,
or the equivalent, to eliminate false dependencies. The problem is
that fitting it into the structure of bjam is nontrivial. It's
certainly not doable in the current Boost.Jam language.
[followups to boost-testing]
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting 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