|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-16 04:24:16
Anthony Williams wrote:
> This seems problematic to me.
>
> Firstly, if a compiler is known to have a bug in the code generator
> with particular options, we shouldn't be enabling those options in
> bjam, and we should document that these options shouldn't be enabled.
>
> Secondly, I would expect most applications to be compiled with what
> amounts to "release" options --- full optimization, no debug symbols,
> etc. If boost code doesn't work under these circumstances, that's
> problematic. For some of my apps I've seen an order of magnitude
> difference in performance between debug and release builds. If a
> boost library doesn't work in release builds, it means I can't use it
> in that application.
Agreed, we need more people to run release mode tests.
> Thirdly, given the above, why aren't there more people running
> "release" tests?
>
> I'm seeing failures in bind, graph, iterator, numeric-interval,
> python, random, range, regex, spirit and test on msvc-8.0express that
> aren't showing up in the RudbekAssociates-V2 tests.
What regex failures are you seeing: I do test that locally in both release
and debug modes and I haven't seen any?
Thanks, John.