Re: [boost] Boost.Container and tests: why is Boost.Test bypassed

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?

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/