From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-25 15:04:22
"Ilya Sokolov" <fal_delivery_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>>> 2. Unfortunately original test modult function signature is
>>>> DLL initialization. So i had to introduce new one.
>>> I don't see it unacceptable, given the majority of
>>> init_unit_test_suite() functions using BOOST_TEST_SUITE macro. I think
>> See my other post.
> What post?
Look at the bottom of
>>> I want to seamlessly migrate from static UTF to shared. I need to
>>> fallback to the static UTF where it is not supported (by toolchain).
>> Where? The primary direction of my effort was to make sure shared library
>> works consistently on all platforms.
> Even on platforms that does not have shared libraries at all? ;-)
On these platform it works as well, since if there is no shared libraries no
problem can be either.
>> If you still insist on static/shared
>> library compartibility it can be achieved: define BOOST_TEST_NO_MAIN and
>> BOOST_TEST_ALTERMNATIVE_INIT_API during library compilation and you got
>> you need.
> I'm trying to argue that such use case is needlessly complex.
If you can suggest a different/easier one I'll be happy to hear it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk