From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-09 08:39:28
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Martin Wille" <mw8329_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Wil Evers wrote:
>>> 4) test (please don't get me started)
>>> for any reasonable degree of portability (takes over main(), maps OS
>>> signals to C++ exceptions, continues to run after failing assert()s,
>> FWIW, I don't use Boost.Test for the same reasons.
> Could you be more elebotate? Cause none of the above seems fair. I dont know
> about any portability issues related to main in static library (and it's
> optional nowdays anyway). SIGNAL catching is optional and doesn't constitute
> portabiltiy issues per se, whether to use it's up to you.
At least for a long time, the signal catching apparently was the default
behaviour of Boost.Test. The signal handling is broken because it
exploits undefined behaviour. It caused troubles for several of the
tests in Boost.
I didn't write or quote that part (since I didn't run into these issues):
>>> - Lots of construction/destruction ordering issues - major changes here
>>> between boost-1.32 and boost-1.33.1
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk