Re: [boost] [Test] [All Library Developers] multiple definitions

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-24 10:13:53

"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:uekaropha.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>>>> I just tried to compile something with the test library and two
>>>>>> translation units.  Boom!  It was this definition, which appears in
>>>>>> boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder which Boost.Test componenent were you using?
>>>>
>>>> Well, minimal test, and I now know it applies only to single TUs, but
>>>> the bug would apply to multiple TUs.
>>>
>>> Actually none of the Boost.Test inline components are supposed to be used
>>> for multiple testing modules (all supply main function()). So I do not 
>>> think
>>> any fix is required.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but when I look at the documentation for execution_monitor,
>> I don't see "don't use this in multiple TUs."  What am I missing?
>
> Nothing prevent you from using execution_monitor as a library with multiple 
> TU. Inlined versions of Boost.Test components are intended just as a 
> shortcuts to avoid linking in simple cases where header only solution is 
> preferable. 

Oh, I see.  You are calling these ".ipp" files "inlined," but they
really have only non-inline functions and are not #included in any
header files the way, IME, .ipp files normally are (to separate
template implementations from their declarations).

> If you are using multiple TU based testing I don't think it 
> should be considered as a "simple case" and linking with the library could 
> be afforded.

Sure.

>   If you believe it's important for inlined version of execution_monitor 
> component (by itself) to be usable in multiple TU situation (which I don't 
> really recommend - it brings a lot of dependencies with it especially on 
> windows) I am open for discussion, but
>
> 1. It wouldn't help you with any of existing inlined Boost.Test components
> 2. It's more like a new feature than bug fix and could wait till after 
> release.

No, I think I was just confused by the extensions on these files.
Sorry about that.  You might want to consider whether there's a better
way to name them.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com