From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 09:44:57
Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams writes:
>> Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>>- the testing procedure is complex
>>>> Internally, yes. The main complexity and _the_ source of fragility
>>>> lies in "bjam results to XML" stage of processing. I'd say it's one of
>>>> the top 10 issues by solving which we can substantially simplify
>>>> everybody's life.
>>> I agree. This processing step has to deal with the build system (which
>>> in complex itself) and with different compiler output.
>> I've always thought that a design that gets information by processing
>> stdout from bjam would be fragile. Furthermore, it means we can't use
>> the -j option with bjam, which, even on uniprocessors, can speed up
>> builds considerably. The build system itself should be writing the
> Exactly. Is BoostBuild v2. going to give us that?
Not by itself, but I think it should be possible to build some target
types that, along with Python scripts (or a C++ tool we build), would
[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