|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-16 08:57:55
"AlisdairM" <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If the compiler does not work under those situations it is even more
> problematic! The Borland environment can be 'challenging' until you
> adapt to its idiosyncracies.
> One of those is to only ever build staticly linked, full-debug
> releases. Anything else is prone to hard-to-diagnose problems. Those
> problems can be found and nailed one by one, but it is rarely worth the
> effort - the performance and image size is usually not that different.
That was what I meant by my first point (which you snipped):
>> 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.
> I agree release testing is important, on all platforms, but I am not
> too hung up on Borland release mode failures at this point.
Should we just make "release mode" for Borland equivalent to debug mode
without the symbols?
> Hopefully their next iteration of compilers may make this a reasonable
> option.
That would be good.
Anthony
-- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk