- Boost-users - lists.boost.org

Boost.Test segfault clang++3.3 macports cmake
by Dave Gomboc 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

I am getting a segmentation fault when attempting to use Boost.Test. I suspect that I don't have something set up correctly -- your assistance in remedying this would be appreciated. I am using clang++-mp-3.3 as installed by MacPorts on OS X 10.8.4. Here's the crash, which occurs after Boost.Test reports "*** No errors detected". Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory. Reason: 13 at address: 0x0000000000000000 0x000000010006f6d6 in boost::unit_test::test_unit::~test_unit () (gdb) bt #0 0x000000010006f6d6 in boost::unit_test::test_unit::~test_unit () #1 0x000000010003bb5f in boost::unit_test::master_test_suite_t::~master_test_suite_t () #2 0x000000010003bcdd in boost::unit_test::framework_impl::~framework_impl () #3 0x00007fff8f465307 in __cxa_finalize () #4 0x00007fff8f466f57 in exit () #5 0x00007fff96ddc7e8 in start () (gdb) Here's a somewhat simplified version of what I have: ==== UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp ==== #pragma clang diagnostic push #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wall" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdisabled-macro-expansion" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wexit-time-destructors" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wextra-semi" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wglobal-constructors" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-prototypes" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wsign-conversion" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wundef" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wweak-vtables" #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #pragma clang diagnostic pop ==== HaveBoostUnitTestFrameworkDefineMain.cpp ==== #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE All_Tests #include "UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp" /* commenting out the next 3 lines makes no difference */ namespace boost { namespace unit_test { namespace framework { master_test_suite_t & master_test_suite(); } } } // namespace boost::unit_test::framework ==== CMakeLists.txt ==== cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.10 FATAL_ERROR) cmake_policy(VERSION 2.8.10) project (Foo) add_definitions(-DBOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK) add_library (foo SHARED Foo1.hpp more files... UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp Foo1.cpp more files... ) find_package(Boost COMPONENTS unit_test_framework REQUIRED) include_directories(${Boost_INCLUDE_DIRS}) file(GLOB_RECURSE test_source_files *.unit_tests.cpp) link_directories(${Boost_LIBRARY_DIRS}) add_executable(all_tests HaveBoostUnitTestFrameworkDefineMain.cpp ${test_source_files}) target_link_libraries(all_tests foo ${Boost_UNIT_TEST_FRAMEWORK_LIBRARY} ) set(CTEST_OUTPUT_ON_FAILURE TRUE) enable_testing() add_test(all_tests all_tests) set(CMAKE_C_COMPILER "clang-mp-3.3") set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "-Weverything --std=c11 -O3 -DNDEBUG") set(CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER "clang++-mp-3.3") set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "-ferror-limit=1 --std=c++1y -stdlib=libc++ -Weverything -Wno-c++98-compat -Wno-c++98-compat-pedantic -Wno-padded -O3 -DNDEBUG") ==== Foo1.hpp ==== (has declarations, but nothing that depends on Boost at all -- nor does any other non-test file) ==== Foo1.cpp ==== (has definitions, but nothing that depends on Boost at all -- nor does any other non-test file) ====Foo1.unit_tests.cpp ==== #include "Foo1.hpp" #include <string> #pragma clang diagnostic push #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wglobal-constructors" #include "UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp" BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Bar1) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(foobar1) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(std:string("a"), std::string("a")); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(foobar2) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(true, true); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Bar2) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(barfoo1) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(1, 1); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(barfoo2) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(0, 0); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() #pragma clang diagnostic pop

3 2

[predef] [rfc] Mutually exclusive definitions?
by Rene Rivera 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

After going back and re-reading various commentaries for the review of Boost.Predef and some after the review I'm questioning a design choice of Boost.Predef. Currently Boost.Predef will define multiple symbols when, for example, a compiler "emulates" another compiler. The current common occurrence of this is the GCC compiler which many other compilers emulate by defining the GCC version macros. This is no longer the case for the OS definitions though. The OS definitions are mutually exclusive. And hence in order to make for a more consistent behavior I am considering changing the library to make not just OS defs mutually exclusive. But also making compiler, library, and architecture mutually exclusive. And I'm asking for some general feedback as to what the most useful approach, from using Boost.Predef, is likely to be. In particular I'm considering the following choices: 1. Simple mutual exclusion of BOOST_ARCH_*, BOOST_COMP_*, BOOST_LIB_C_*, BOOST_LIB_STD_*, and of course BOOST_OS_* definitions. 2. Mutual exclusion of the base/real definitions with the addition of *_EMULATED definitions when multiple defs detected. For example for GCC we would have BOOST_COMP_GCC_EMULATED indicated the version of the GCC being emulated. 3. No mutual exclusion of base definitions but with the addition of a "flag" definition when multiple defs are detected. For example with GCC it would have the usual BOOST_COMP_GCC but also have a "#define BOOST_COMP_GCC_IS_EMULATED". 4. Do nothing and live with multiple definitions and the current discrepancy in behavior for BOOST_OS definitions. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

1 0

[test] floating point comparison
by Matthijs Möhlmann 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello all, I've the following test program: #define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK #define BOOST_TEST_MAIN #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE Master test suite #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(TestCase) { BOOST_REQUIRE_CLOSE_FRACTION(45.00f, 45.17f, 0.004f); } When I compile it with the following line: g++ -o main.o -c -Werror -Wall -std=c++11 -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -DBOOST_SPIRIT_USE_PHOENIX_V3 -DUTEST -g main.cpp g++ -o main main.o -lboost_unit_test_framework I get the following output: Running 1 test case... *** No errors detected If I lower the tolerance to 0.0004f then I'll get the following: Running 1 test case... main.cpp(8): fatal error in "TestCase": difference{0.00376352} between 45.00f{45} and 45.17f{45.1699982} exceeds 0.00039999999 *** 1 failure detected in test suite "Master test suite" Why does it say that the difference is 0.00376352 and not 0.17....... ? Regards, Matthijs Möhlmann

4 4

BOOST.TEST Mixing automatic and manual test registratioI
by Manuel Maier 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi, Is it possible to mix manual and automatic test registration in Boost,.Test. Example: BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE( ExampleTestSuite ) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( testcase1 ) { BOOST_TEST_MESSAGE("Test 1 in Example Test Suite"); BOOST_WARN_EQUAL(1, 1); BOOST_REQUIRE_MESSAGE(5 > 1, "Here is an example message. Something may be wrong"); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() Now I want to manually add a testcase to this testsuite. This seems to be important for me, as there is no automatic registration version for BOOST_PARAM_TEST_CASE(...) I also made a manualTestRegstration: test_suite* TestSuiteA = BOOST_TEST_SUITE("test_suiteA"); void manualTestCaseRegistration() { TestSuiteA->add( &test_case ); framework::master_test_suite().add( TestSuiteA ); } Is it possible to add a manual testcase(e.g.: test_case_b) to the ExampleTestSuite? Searching the internet I stumbled over following thread: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7000 But it seems to me this patch never made it to release(at least until now). In fact( I guess) this could/would be exactly the feature I am looking for. Kind Regards and thanks for help Manuel _____________________________________________ Manuel Maier, B. Eng. Business Unit "Motion" / Research & Development Bernecker + Rainer Industrie-Elektronik Ges.m.b.H. B&R Strasse 1 5142 Eggelsberg Austria Tel: +43 7748 6586 Fax: +43 7748 6586 - 24 Email: manuel.maier(a)br-automation.com http://www.br-automation.com ____________________________________________________________ Firmenbuchnummer: Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis / FN 111651 v

3 3

[boost.test] How to register custom exception for auto test?
by Jörg Becker 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi, I'm using the test library of boost 1.49.0 for my unit tests. It works fine so fare, but if my program throws an error, I get the default error message unknown location(0): fatal error in "excption1_test": unknown type, witch hides the original error message. I tried to register an error translator, but without success. Here is what I tried (modified test/test/custom_exception_test.cpp to use auto test with global fixture): #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE "boost test custom_exception_test" #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #include <boost/test/unit_test_monitor.hpp> using namespace boost::unit_test; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE( custom_exception_testsuite ) struct my_exception1 { explicit my_exception1( int res_code ) : m_res_code( res_code ) {} int m_res_code; }; void throw_my_exception1() { throw my_exception1( 12 ); } void my_exception1_translator( my_exception1 ) { BOOST_TEST_MESSAGE( "Caught my_exception1" ); } class my_config { public: my_config () { unit_test_monitor.register_exception_translator<my_exception1>( &my_exception1_translator ); } }; BOOST_GLOBAL_FIXTURE( my_config ) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( excption1_test ) { throw_my_exception1(); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() Can anybody tell me what I'm missing? Thanks, Jörg

3 5

[BOOST]BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE vs BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE
by Hemanth Choudary M V (RBEI/ETA1) 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi, Scenario1: Both files are present in the same Project BoostUnitTest. fileA: typedef boost::mpl::list<long long,unsigned char> test_types; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(MySuite) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( my_test, T, test_types ) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( sizeof(T), (unsigned)4 ); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() fileB: typedef boost::mpl::list<long long,unsigned char> test_types; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(MySuite) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( my_test, T, test_types ) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( sizeof(T), (unsigned)4 ); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() As shown above, MySuite is extended across 2 files fileA and fileB. The BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE name is same across the both the files and and the suite name is also same across both the files.. Boost is able to differentiate between the 2 test cases and the test cases are executed. Scenario2: fileA: BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(MySuite) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( my_test) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(1,1); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() fileB: BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(MySuite) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_TEMPLATE( my_test ) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL( 1,1 ); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() In the scenario2, I get a compile time error (Error 1 error LNK2005: "public: void __thiscall mySuite::insuite2::test_method(void)" (?test_method@insuite2@mySuite@@QAEXXZ) already defined in BoostUnitTest.obj) which basically suggests that one or more multiply defined symbols are found. Why is the behaviour different in these 2 scenarios? How is Boost able to differenciate between the 2 test cases in Scenario1? Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards, Hemanth Choudary MV RBEI/ETA1

3 2

[Boost.Test] Detail lost when using BOOST_*_NO_THROW
by Adam Nielsen 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi again, While developing tests I sometimes find that functions that should not throw exceptions do. Because this is an unexpected situation, I would like to know what exception has been thrown so I know what problem to look for in my test design. Unfortunately the Boost.Test framework only provides a terse message like this: test.cpp(123): fatal error in "fnTest": exception thrown by test(); It doesn't tell you which exception was thrown, nor the reason why. Is there some way to tell Boost.Test to include the exception message (from what()) if the exception derives from std::exception? This would make problem solving much quicker as you would not have to run the tests through a debugger to see which exception is being thrown and why. There is some discussion about this on Stack Overflow[1] but the consensus seems to be the best solution is not to use BOOST_*_NO_THROW. If you don't use these and an exception is thrown, a lot more detail is provided. Assuming this is a limitation in Boost.Test, would it be possible to add this as a feature so that future versions include the same level of detail whether you use BOOST_*_NO_THROW or not? Many thanks, Adam. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15133259/boost-check-no-throw-how-to-get…

3 2

--run_test and using this to run a subset of Testcases.
by Manuel Maier 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi I am looking for help considering running sets of Testcases/Testsuites. First off, is there a possibility to do a negative selection. i.e. tell boost.test to NOT run certain Testcases/testsuites? Further is it possible to run sets of Testcases(which may reside in different testsuites)? Assume following test tree: MASTER suite1 case1 case2 suite2 testcase1 testcase2 suite3 subsuite testcase1 Now lets say I wanna run testcase case1, testcase2 and the subsuite testsuite. Is this even possible? Kind Regards and thanks a lot for help Manuel Maier _____________________________________________ Manuel Maier, B. Eng. Business Unit "Motion" / Research & Development Bernecker + Rainer Industrie-Elektronik Ges.m.b.H. B&R Strasse 1 5142 Eggelsberg Austria Tel: +43 7748 6586 Fax: +43 7748 6586 - 24 Email: manuel.maier(a)br-automation.com http://www.br-automation.com ____________________________________________________________ Firmenbuchnummer: Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis / FN 111651 v

5 6

[Boost.Test] Unable to perform init at startup
by Adam Nielsen 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

(Apologies for the last message, I am using an unfamiliar keyboard and accidentally pressed the 'send' keyboard combination.) Hi all, I'm having a bit of a problem trying to figure out how to perform some class init while manually registering my tests. I want to run a set of tests which all share the same class instance (this is a factory class that creates the objects to be tested.) I am creating a number of global class instances and using boost::bind in the constructor to register the tests with Boost.Test. This works fine, except that I need to create the factory class before the tests can be run. In case the factory class fails, I want to use some of the Boost.Test checks in the initialisation function. However when I do this, I get this runtime error: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error' what(): can't use testing tools before framework is initialized I am assuming this means I need to wait with the construction of my factory class until Boost.Test is ready, but I am unsure how to do this. I am #defining BOOST_TEST_MODULE, and when I try to declare a function called init_unit_test() as suggested in the docs it tells me the function already exists. If I remove the BOOST_TEST_MODULE #define, then it complains that main() is not implemented. I am a bit confused because I do not understand the reason for having init_unit_test() if you cannot implement it. If you choose not to use the Boost auto function then it seems you must implement your own main(), so I would expect your init code would go there, so there is no need for the init_unit_test() function? Is there some other way not mentioned in the docs to manually register tests (which are class member functions) but where the class can call Boost.Test functions in its constructor? Many thanks, Adam.

2 2

Using boost asio with client certificate "sslv3 handshake failure"
by Jeff Perkins 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

We are trying to connect to our server using boost asio and getting the error "handshake: sslv3 alert handshake failure". We have tried changing the ssl type, setting verify peer to none and a few other things with no success. The pem file we are using originated as a p12 file that we used openssl to output to a pem file for use in this project. Within the pem file there is both an encrypted private key and certificate. I have searched stackoverflow of a solution but the only similar thing that came up was openssl not being installed correctly which doesn't appear to be the problem in this case. Is there something I'm missing in my call back as I'm not passing a purpose or length, although I cannot find appropriate values to pass as purpose in the boost docs. - std::size_t max_length, // The maximum size for a password. - password_purpose purpose // Whether password is for reading or writing. using boost::asio::ip::tcp; boost::system::error_code ec; boost::asio::io_service io_service; boost::asio::ssl::context ctx(io_service, boost::asio::ssl::context::sslv23); ctx.set_password_callback(my_password_callback); ctx.use_private_key_file("/key1.pem",boost::asio::ssl::context_base::pem, ec); namespace ssl = boost::asio::ssl; typedef ssl::stream ssl_socket; ssl_socket sockconn(io_service, ctx); tcp::resolver resolver(io_service); tcp::resolver::query query(" tech.loopfish.com", "https"); boost::asio::connect(sockconn.lowest_layer(), resolver.resolve(query)); sockconn.lowest_layer().set_option(tcp::no_delay(true)); sockconn.set_verify_mode(boost::asio::ssl::verify_peer); sockconn.set_verify_callback(ssl::rfc2818_verification("tech.loopfish.com ")); sockconn.handshake(ssl_socket::client);

1 0