Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] What Should we do About Boost.Test?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-05 17:14:13

on Fri Oct 05 2012, Gennadiy Rozenal <> wrote:

> Dave Abrahams <dave <at>> writes:
>> I haven't looked at the code, but I wonder if Gennadiy could improve the
>> situation by putting the debug break in the dtor of a return value, so
>> you gather up all this information in the nested function calls, and
>> then only drop into the debugger where the test macro is invoked?
> I do not follow what you are saying. What return value you refer to? And what
> kind of debug break?
> Macro resolves to something like:
> check_function( expression under test, some context,... )
> Since function arguments are evaluated in unknown order, it it possible the
> context collection expressions executed first.

IIUC the claim
is that the call stack at the point of the breakpoint looks like:


I obviously don't understand the problem completely, but my suggestion
was, instead of breaking in boost.test_function4, to return something
from boost.test_function1 whose dtor contains a debug break. If
valuable information is being collected in boost.test_functionX, store
it on the heap if necessary so it can be available at the point of the
debug break.

Hope this is useful, but it might not be.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing                  Software Development        Training             Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers  C++  Boost

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at