Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-18 18:00:57

> It would be good to able to use my own exception types instead of
> Boost.Test's private exception type. You could possibly write a version
> of BOOST_ITEST_EPOINT which lets the user specify their own exception
> type, and some kind of mechanism to specify which exceptions are allowed
> seems essential.

Why would you need an ability to specify which fake exception to throw? This
facility tests namely this ability of your code to do unwinding properly in
case of any exception in any place.
You don't really need to know which exception it was. To check post
exception invariants you could use catch(...)

> It would also be very useful to be able to tell where an exception was
> thrown from. Since you're already tracking scopes, maybe there could be
> a way of telling if it was in a specific scope?

If an execution path causing a memory leaks and failed invariant log shows
an execution path traceback (try est_example2). An exception is marked by
"Failure point". Also you could specify
--break_exec_path parameter and execution will about in failure point.

> My tests store some data in globals (in anonymous namespaces), and these
> are causing the memory leak detector to complain. So can I turn it off?

1. Keep in mind that in general exception safety test meant for small local
checks and not intended for huge code pieces. Accordingly all global data
should be initialized outside of test scope (usually, unless you are doing
the global init testing)

> I'm using a custom allocator which detect leaks anyway, so I don't need
> it.
If you are using custom allocator you shouldn't be affected by operator new
overloads. In some cases you could implement class level new to prevent
overloaded new invocation.

As a last resort there is a macro BOOST_ITEST_NO_NEW_OVERLOADS that needs to
be defined both for library and test compilation. But then nothing is going
to be caught by my facilities.

> BOOST_CHECK now seems to throw an exception, but I've been using it in
> destructors. So is this really needed? If it is, can you make the
> exception type public so I can treat it differently to other exception
> types.

This test is not intended to perform anything else but exception safety
test. So DONT use Test Tools inside your test code unless you are testing
for invariants. Any Test Tools failure is treated as failed invariant and
execution path is aborted. No need to catch this exception - error found

> Also, exception_safety.hpp should include <boost/bind.hpp>.

I did not included it intentionally, since to use macroless interface you do
not need one and I did not want to incur unnecessary dependencies.


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