Boost logo

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 Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd

Boost-testing list run by mbergal at