Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-05 09:50:41

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/05/2010 02:34 AM, Jürgen Hunold wrote:

[...]
>> I'm fairly new to Boost.Test, but the documentation gave me the
>> impression that you had to make a decision on whether to use dynamic
>> linking or not when you wrote the code, because static and dynamic
>> linking need slightly different setups. That would suggest that you
>> can't easily switch between them, wouldn't it?
> 
> Well, I use the same code for static ansd shared linking :-))
> You are using AUTO_TEST_CASEs, so there is no problem. All the needed magic is 
> hidden in BOOST_TEST_MAIN in combination with BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK.
> Using "manual registration" can be tricky.

Hm, I must have misread it then.

>>> And this issues
>>> "
>>> test_main.cpp:95:1: warning: "BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK" redefined
>>> <command-line>: warning: this is the location of the previous definition"
>>>
>>> when compiling a shared library with all Boost.Build magic enabled.
>>
>> Eh? The library code doesn't use Boost.Test, only the testing code does.
>> And even the testing code only includes that #define when
>> BOOST_XINT_SINGLE_TEST_PROGRAM is defined, which it should never be
>> except on my development machine, or that of someone else doing
>> modifications to the library.
> 
> That would be me ;-) I've added the single test program locally to get the 
> errors messages. Adding "BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK" in source code is potentially 
> dangerous. It should really be a commandline-option. It should be possible to 
> set in Code::Blocks.

Yes, it is, I just didn't see the point. I've made a note to move it.

>>> By the way:
>>> You have deleted test/Jamroot. Should there be a "test/Jamfile" instead ?
>>
>> Yes, there should. Did it not make it into Subversion? Checking... it
>> appears that it's there, so I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe check
>> it out manually?
> 
> No, it is definetely missing.  

Weird... I'm able to check it out and view it, via RapidSVN, so it has
got to be in the repository. I don't know what to tell you. I assume you
have the older copy with your modifications? I just applied the patch
that you sent and renamed the file.
- -- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkvhd7EACgkQp9x9jeZ9/wR1pwCfTziX+V6GOtV+yBohyA2nEqfM
rfkAoOXGumwIAlBH9ACi12cXwt/x9UfX
=Rszr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----