From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-12 18:42:00
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>> 2. Opting to ignore system signals will cause halt for regression
>>>>> some cases (unless we change the setup explicitly)
>>>> No, it's the other way round. The UB causes halts in regression testing.
>>>> I experienced dozens of these incidences. As I said, I wasted days of
>>>> CPU and human time on this problem.
>>>> How does not mapping a signal to exceptions and letting the process die
>>>> instead cause halt for regression testing?
>>> Because some compiler would show dialog window for example. Unfortunately
>>> there is no silver bullet here. One will have to deal with stalling
>>> regression tests one way or another. Which case has less incidents is an
>>> open question.
>> In the absence of other data, it seems to me that Martin's report
>> should be given more weight.
> What do you mean by "absence of other data"? I know for sure that several NT
> compilers will produce dialog window.
Hmm, maybe I misunderstood the argument. Isn't there a way of encoding
this information in the library and allowing tests to specify a
default mode, e.g.:
"By default, I am being run as part of an automated test suite and
should not stall the process"
"By default I am being run by hand..."
maybe this mode specification thing is even unnecessary, I don't know.
But if you know which platforms and compilers will benefit from
mapping signals, it seems to me you should only do it there.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk