Boost logo

Boost :

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:

> >
> 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

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