Boost logo

Boost Testing :

From: Jim Douglas (jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-20 03:58:39

<grin>Ah! The cavalry has arrived...</grin>

Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> .. Memory leak is "worse evil" than UB, because at least it is well defined.

Being pedantic, I think you meant "a lesser evil"? Anyway, they are both
to be avoided.

I would also make the point that although we can get the library to
compile by suppressing the warnings, the root cause of problem is still
present in the header files.

My area of work is high reliability/high risk projects using the QNX
RTOS and there is a "zero tolerance" approach to compiler warnings. If I
derive classes from the serialization header files then the warnings
will appear when I compile my application code and be rejected on QA

I am new to Boost and I am willing to get more involved because I can
see its potential applications. The question is, do the various authors
look on their libraries as "industrial strength" utilities, or are they
simply prototypes to test ideas for future inclusion into the C++
Standard Library?


Boost-testing list run by mbergal at