From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-14 01:16:51
"Benoit Sigoure" <tsuna_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Jan 12, 2008, at 3:26 AM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna <at> lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>>> Thanks for your code. It grieves me that Boost.Test is the *only*
>>> library for which I have to write "special cases" only because it's
>>> not "well-behaved".
>> In what sence? How do you define well behaved?
> What is this whole thread about? Boost.Test is non standard because
> it messes up your `main'
Why do you care? how does it make Boost.Test behave badly?
> and must be used differently whether you're
> linking with it as a shared library or a static archive.
As you have seen in my example, it is exactly the same for both usage
variants. The only difference is additional macro in makefile. But, than,
link command is going to be different anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk