Boost logo

Boost :

From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-07 14:18:59

Daryle Walker wrote:
> On 12/6/05 6:00 PM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>Daryle Walker wrote:
> [SNIP a library that failed on every compiler]
>>>This could be another case to watch out for: when a library fails on every
>>>compiler (or a least a lot of them). Here it would be the library that's
>>>possibly broken.
>>Isn't that exactly what these tests are supposed to measure ? Or do you mean
>>that in case *all* tests fail the report could just mention a single failure,
>>on a different granularity scale ?
> Yes, I meant the latter. If we suddenly see a compiler fail on every
> library, or a library fail on every compiler, then we probably have a
> configuration issue. (But how do we implement "suddenly," since the tests
> don't keep a history of past results? We only want to block blooper runs,
> not compilers or libraries that legitimately fail everything.)

Indeed. One thing I already proposed in the past: some dummy tests (akin
to autoconf macros) that make sure a sane configuration / environment is
available at all. These tests could cover a specific toolchain, or even
some lightweight library-specific code. If these are known as dependencies
for the rest of the test suite(s), quite a bit of computing power (and
mail bandwidth) could be spared whenever these fail.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at