From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-12 17:22:49
thanks for your quick response.
> BOOST_TEST_NO_LIB is used to prevent auto-linking and in general has nothing
> to do with the problem you expirience.
My link problems where auto-linking problems, so they have something to do with BOOST_TEST_NO_LIB. (I know that Markus Duft had other Problems, but all I did was describe him my "setup", because it 'works for me', so I ventured that it might also work for him.)
> > Is this the "officially supported" solution? But how am I supposed to
> > know from the sources that globally defining "BOOST_TEST_NO_LIB" is the
> > expected way to do it, while defining "BOOST_TEST_INCLUDED" is "fidhy"?
> Try reading new docs or post an example that fails to link here and I will
> show a right way.
The new docs are nice (and I have an idea now how to avoid my problem), but I will first describe my example that fails:
I have multiple source files. The file where the function "init_unit_test_suite" is defined contains the line
while all other files contain the line
Because "boost/test/unit_test.hpp" contains a line that will use the auto-linking feature if
#if !defined(BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB) && !defined(BOOST_TEST_NO_LIB) && \
!defined(BOOST_TEST_SOURCE) && !defined(BOOST_TEST_INCLUDED)
I thought that I have to define at least one of these 4 macros, if I want to avoid auto-linking problems. I initially thought that defining BOOST_TEST_INCLUDED is the "officially supported" solution, since my scenario is 'Using "included" option'. My next guess was that defining BOOST_TEST_NO_LIB is the "officially supported" solution.
Now you tell me that globally defining any macro at all is already a mistake, so I guess I'm not allowed to include "unit_test.hpp" in more than one source file, and should replace
> > Or is globally defining "BOOST_TEST_NO_LIB" just as "fidhy" as globally
> > defining "BOOST_TEST_INCLUDED"?
> I am not why your sarcasm is warranted here. I am just trying to help.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I was a bit annoyed by the typo in the link to the new documentation. I'm really happy with boost/test, because it allows me to concentrate on my unit-tests without bothering to much with the unit-test framework. I used cppunit before, but switched to boost/test, because it was both simpler to use and more powerful (well designed messages for test failures, memory leak detection, easy integration into tool chains, ...). When upgrading to boost 1.34.1, I had to figure out how to make my unit-tests link again on windows. Making them link again was quite easy, but I would have preferred to know the "officially supported" solution, because upgrading to boost 1.35 might otherwise again break something.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk