Re: [boost] BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS, BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD tests in config_test not strict enough

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-08 04:17:39

Peter Dimov wrote:
> I'm looking at the results of some new tests I added to smart_ptr:
> spinlock_try_test, yield_k_test, and I'm seeing failures on platforms
> that (in single threaded mode, i.e. without <threading>multi)
> advertise BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS (and BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD) but in
> reality do one of:
>
> 1. provide stub implementations of pthread_mutex_*, failing a
> pthread_mutex_trylock test;
>
> 2. provide stubs and segfault on pthread_mutex_trylock;
>
> 3. fail to link because of missing pthread_mutex_trylock;
>
> 4. fail to link because of missing sched_yield.
>
> This isn't particularly odd or surprising. But I think that
> config_test
> ought to fail on these platforms, for the same reason my tests fail.
> The reason the test passes is because boost_has_pthreads.ipp and
> boost_has_sched_yield.ipp are too permissive; the first one only tests
> pthread_mutex_* functions that are stubbed and appear to work, the
> second doesn't attempt to actually call sched_yield and - presumably
> - the linker discards the reference.
>
> Does this make any sense? :-)

Yes, but the intention was that you check for BOOST_HAS_THREADS before the 
other macros.

John.