From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-27 03:35:50
"Ilya Sokolov" <fal_delivery_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> >>>>>>> 2. Unfortunately original test modult function signature is
> unacceptable for DLL initialization. So i had to introduce new one.
> >> I still don't see why is it unacceptable. Can you state it explicitly?
> > Hmm. How to state it more explicitly. How about this:
> > It does not link.
> boost::unit_test::test_suite* init_unit_test_suite( int, char*  )
> link, but
> bool init_unit_test()
> doesn't link?
Quite the opposite. Original testrunner/initialization function signatures
cause Boost.Test fail to build as DLL.
> >> Problem arise with library that should work on both platforms, with
> and without dll support.
> > What platforms are you talking about?
I am not sure Boost.Test and/or Boost support these. What compiler r u
using? Do we run regression tests on these?
> > Why the solutions I provided are not satisfactory?
> they are too complex for such simple problem
The problem is far from being simple and what is complicated in solution I
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk