From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-24 11:05:46
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <john_maddock_at_[hidden]>
> I have some comments on the new status makefile/regression tests for
> 1) I like the regression test code in status/Jamfile - is there any
> of making this generally available as part of the boost build system -
> looks like the sort of thing that can be usefully reused.
That was part of the plan; Joerg Walter was working on it for a while,
but then I made a whole bunch of changes and I think he got discouraged
or ran out of time. However, please see this thread at jamboost:
> 2) I don't think that the tests in status/Jamfile should be included
> default from the top level Jamfile - for one thing if a user just
> build the boost libraries, they may not want to stick around while
> of test cases build (something that can take some time), for another
> current status/Jamfile implementation results in quite a number of
> errors scrolling past the screen (see below).
I agree. It can also cause a long delay before building starts just
because building the dependencies for the tests is expensive.
> 3) The current implementation of the link-fail and compile-fail tests
> results in a number of "failure" messages scrolling past the screen -
> link-fail test is the worst, but compile-fail isn't too good either.
> problem is that although these tests succeed, they none the less
> one or more failures occurred, for example the output from
> static_assert_test_8 is shown below (this is a successful test but you
> wouldn't necessarily know that from the output!):
Yep; fixing this would require some more core Jam extensions than I'm
ready to implement right now. The key, when you want to know what
failed, is to look for the "***********" lines in the output.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk