Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-16 22:56:39


Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Carl Daniel writes:
>>I assume that right now the process hierarchy looks like this:
>>
>>python.exe
>> bjam.exe
>> cl.exe
>> link.exe
>> foo_test.exe
>> bar_test.exe
>> ...
>>
>>and that there are no cases in which a test process creates child
>>processes. Is that correct?

Definitely not correct.

> AFAIK, _tests themselves_ do not launch any child processes, but
> compilers can and do.

But if there ever is a test for process control it would have to spawn
child processes.

> IOW, the hierarchy looks more like
>
> python.exe
> bjam.exe
> cl.exe
> como.exe
> somethingrather.exe
> linksomethingrather.exe
> g++.exe
> somethingrather2.exe
> link.exe
> foo_test.exe
> bar_test.exe
> ...

At a minimum CodeWarrior and GCC spawn children. And bjam itself runs
it's actions in a child shell, for which the shell would spawn children.
As a concrete example for CW it would go something like:

python.exe
   bjam.exe
     cmd.exe
       mwcc.exe (cw compile)
     cmd.exe
       mwcc.exe (cw link)
         mwld.exe
     cmd.exe
       foo_test.exe
     cmd.exe
       bar_test.exe

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at meta-comm.com