From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-21 12:49:36
--- In jamboost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <dave_at_b...> wrote:
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > --- In jamboost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <dave_at_b...> wrote:
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > I just checked in some changes to your Jamfile which should
> > > everything.
> > > Please try a clean rebuild.
> > OK, everything compiles, but nothing runs! This is now true no
> > matter what TOOLS I use!
> Weird. It seemed to work for me.
> Are you sure nothing runs?
> Just tried it again. The lines labelled "capture-run-output" are
> invoking your tests.
Ahh... I'm used to seeing the run in the actual output. Having to
inspect a text file to determine if the tests failed is a Bad Thing
> > > The unit-test rule is really not very sophisticated: it makes
> > the .exe
> > > target dependent on a successful run. Of course that means
> > gets
> > > removed if the run fails.
> > Which is precisely what I want. :(
> No you don't. If the run fails, you shouldn't have to re-link the
> executable the next time you try to build.
If the run fails, I'll be fixing code that will hopefully make it
not fail the next time around, so a re-link is almost certainly
going to be necessary the next time I try to build any way.
I guess what I want is a cross between the behavior of "run"
and "unit-test". I want the output to be visible during bjam
invocation (though it can still be captured in a file as well), and
if the run fails I want the next bjam invocation to still run the
executable (linking I suppose could be considered bad and can be
removed). Further, failed runs should be reported as failed target
updates by bjam.
In any event, I don't see how the run targets are going to be useful
to me. The results are just too difficult to inspect for test
failures. Failed runs aren't reported by the bjam invocation at
all, let alone which specific tests failed. So I'd have to inspect
all 96 output files, each buried in a deep tree structure, just to
know if the tests passed or failed.
> > I don't understand why this is a problem only with the gcc
> > The msvc, vc7 and borland toolsets all work flawlessly with unit-
> > test, and they should all be doing the same thing in this case,
> They don't need the JAMSHELL workaround for the link step since
> use command files.
That makes sense. Unfortunately, that makes it sound like I'm not
going to find an acceptable solution to my problem in a short time
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