Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Container and tests: why is Boost.Test bypassed
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 20:07:57
On 2 Jun 2015 at 22:02, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > http://www.boost.org/boost/core/lightweight_test.hpp
> Not to bead the dead horse, but I'll continue to object to any unqualified
> statements about this misconception that this header is any more
> lightweight than Boost.Test.
> As you can see Boost.Test version is at least as simple. On majority of
> modern hardware it takes as much time to build. And I am not even going to
> list all the other advantages (better log and report and so on) Boost.Test
> version has.
I read him as meaning Boost.Test is heavy on build times, which it is
when in header only mode which is the default. If header only is
disabled, I found the effect on build times very reasonable for the
power of the library's facilities. I personally wish header only were
default off in Boost.Test.
Has any work been done on build time for Boost.Test v3?
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk