Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-10 13:06:07

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:

> "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:ej197n$iu1$
>> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>>> It think the question is still reasonable. Can you have *static*
>>>> library called unit_test_framework_main that would contain the stock
>>>> definition of the 'main' function?
>>> I am not sure I understand: static version of the UTF does have function
>>> main() implementation included.
>> Yes, but I mean that it's possible to have:
>> - UTF, that is build either as static lib or DLL and does *not*
>> have any main function.
>> - Small static library that contains stock definition of main.
> No. This is not going to be acceptable IMO.

Why? Is there some problem I've overlooked?

>> So, when using UTF DLL, user must "just" link to an extra library, which
>> might be simpler than defining macroses.
> Why? How is it easier?

Adding one library to link link is easier that modifying sources for a every
test program.

>> And importantly, Boost.Build V2
>> can make this transparent for all Boost.Test users inside Boost.
> Not everybody are using Boost.Build.

I was talking about Boost.Test users inside Boost; of them all use

> IMO the issue is not that significant. In a long term Boost.Test users
> should switch to auto generated test tree and this case is easily
> supported in both builds. Conversion in 95% of the cases is
> straightforward and simple to do.

Sure, but I if nobody does nothing, then in a year from now most tests in
Boost will still be linking to Boost.Test statically.

- Volodya

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