|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-23 15:49:07
David Abrahams writes:
> Its performance with our tests is not too impressive. Only 4 libraries
> pass.
Well:
1) At this point the results are lacking _any_ mark up whatsoever,
which makes the summary report look more pessimistic when it
actually is. Click through individual library results, and you'll
see it.
2) A lot of the failures are due to a failure to build
Boost.Test. Until this fixed, the results will look more
pessimistic than they actually are.
3) When you first throw your code against a new compiler, there is
always a chance of coming across a language corner that the
standard and the compiler disagree about (unless the compiler is
100% standard compliant, which, as we all know, not a single one
is), and if that piece of code happens to be in a widely reusable
library, then again, this is going to shadow the actual compiler
standing. I suspect we have a few such cases here.
IOW, give things some time to sort themselves out.
> Is it really worth spending resources on testing this compiler?
Despite what your initial impression might be, it's a good compiler,
and in past Walter has been quite responsive to fixing Boost-related
problems. Give it a chance. People are using it, and the C++ community
needs more, not less choice.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering