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

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 <rogeeff-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> 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:

   user_function1
     user_function2
       boost.test_function1
         boost.test_function2
           boost.test_function3
             boost.test_function4
               break

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
http://www.boostpro.com             Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers  C++  Boost