Boost logo

Boost :

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
>>>>> testing
>>>>> in
>>>>> 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

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