Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-30 11:13:19
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> For these reasons, manual specification of dependencies can be reliable only
> if these specifications are tested as part of the regression tests. That is,
> if the tests for module X operate in an environment in which only the stated
> (and transitive) dependencies of X are present.
Yes! The regression tests should definitely use the specification to
build/test the library.
This might make the full regression run take longer (if there are libs
that have dependencies on non-header-only libs, they will end up
getting built more than once). On the other hand, once the regression
tests get setup to test modular libraries, we can break up the
monolitic regression runs into much more manageable pieces (each
library + dependencies)...each of which will run much faster than the
This will allow us to get to a more CI like regression setup where we
can test libs as changes are applied. Right now most of the libraries
don't get changed but maybe once a month, but they all get
built/tested with each regression run. This causes the regression runs
to take > 8hrs on some toolsets. This means that (on runners with
multiple toolsets, like teeks99-02, 03, 05) we can go many days before
a new change gets tested for a specific toolset.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk