Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-17 13:44:36

Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti <at> gmail.com> writes:
> I use LightweightTest often instead of Boost.Test (also because
> LightweightTest is hear-only and compiles faster). It'd be nice to
> reconcile these two libs--but that's even more work...

In your scenario how much faster LightweightTest compiles vs library (not single
header) variant of Boost.Test?

In my experience, Boost.Test has negligible (not detected with naked eye)
overhead in library variant.

Gennadiy