Re: [boost] Re: [wave] tool/lib

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 12:04:10

Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>  
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

>>And I do not see why the rest of us should be faced with 
>>library that will never be tested, 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you're so sure this library never will be tested. As I've
> said during the review I'm working on a test suite, which can be run as an
> integral part of the regression process. But please consider this to be not
> a simple task, so I'll need some additional time to fulfill my promise.

I'm presently working on integrating wave as a Cpp backend for synopsis.
In particular, I'm trying to parse (Cpp and C++) boost itself, which appears
to be a good acid test.
One of the difficulties testing a tool/library such as wave on a large scale
seems to me to be the system/platform specific nature of such a task. As
soon as you leave the scale of unit tests, you'll end up with system-dependent
headers that require knowledge about system compilers.
In synopsis I use some python code that scans the system for available
compilers and tries to extract predefined macros and include search paths.

Would such a facility help as a means for more people to test wave ?
What I have in mind is a python wrapper script that runs the 'wave' tool,
forwarding user-defined arguments, but which essentially emulates a system
compiler in that it predefines macros and include paths according to its
findings.

Regards,
                Stefan