From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-15 14:45:20
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Is this OK and should I just ignore it? or
>> should something be done about it. I'm not sure what the point
>> would be if the results are generated without a corresponding test
>> name. I wonder if in fact this is what the authors of the
>> Jamfile.v2 intended or it is an oversight that should be addressed.
> For program_options, the target in question is not even supposed to
> be automatically run, and should not be reported.
Hmmm - so I should just ignore it?
For my purposes I would like to see it run with the directory I expected.
My motivation can be found in something like libs/serialization/example
which contains a Jamfile.v2 with something like
exe : demo ...
with the intention that the demos be create, run and the results reported.
I notice that the process_jam_log has special code to filter out the
example directory so it seems that at one time the exe targets were
expected to be handled as tests.
I believe that this is way it used to be - but of course I don't really
In anycase would you recommend the following:
a) change the Jamfile.v2 in the example directory to use run rather than
b) that authors sholuld do this on all example directories?
c) remove all exe targets from Jamfile.v2 files?
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