Re: [jamboost] Request for timing feature (V2)

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-10 17:45:41

At 06:24 AM 8/9/2002, Vladimir Prus wrote:

>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> When bjam is used for reporting purposes (presumably using using
>> testing.jam) there is a need to report timings.
>>
>> For reporting purposes, we care about certain activities:
>>
>> * Compiles
>> * Links
>> * Lib builds
>> * Runs (of test programs)
>> [snip]
>> In past postings, I've forgotten to mention that execution time will be
>> needed by some reports. For example,
>> All this can wait until version 2.
>
>Let me see.... you have to record the start and end of every action. I 
don't
>
>think it's required to change jam for that. Suppose you have a separate
>program, responsible for gathering tests results, and it is called two 
times
>
>like this
>
> test_report --start-compiling something.cpp
> test_report --end-compiling something.cpp
>
>Would that be OK? It would be very easy to add such pre/postamble to all
>compiler invocation in V2.

No, it really wouldn't be OK. The reporting of compile/link/lib/run 
results, including capturing output, timing, time-stamps, etc, needs to be 
seamless and hidden from the person setting up and running a test.

Leaving a bunch of disconnected residue in multiple files is one of the key 
reasons why V1 is such a trial and tribulation for use in regression 
testing. Having to run post-jam analysis programs to figure out what jam 
has done is bad enough. It sounds like you are suggesting that during a 
jam runt more external programs will be needed to somehow capture what jam 
is doing.

The reporting aspect is a key part of testing. It needs to be build-in, 
not tacked on the end. Or the middle.

--Beman