From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-22 16:42:43
> Although, I get the impression that making use of your scope tracking
> might be easier.
How about if I put itest::exception into public interface and make it aware
about scope it was thrown from?
> > I realize that global operator new overload bound to cause some false
> > positives under some circumstances. Users will need to address this in
> > their
> > code. If you have any better proposition I am all for it.
> boost::itest::exception_safety could take an extra parameter which takes
> flags to turn of parts of the testing tracking (although that depends on
> how easy it is to seperate them). Maybe something like:
> boost::itest::exception_safety(&insert_test, "Insert Test",
> I don't think there's any need to make this accessible through the macro.
I could turn off leaks detection at runtime. But:
1. You could do this at compile time for both library and test or only test
if you are using included components
2. It's going to be user's responsibility to check for leaks *and* notify
the framework (using BOOST_ERROR for example) so that it could report failed
Does it worth it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk