|
|
Boost Testing : |
From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-21 14:27:34
Anthony Williams wrote:
> I guess it depends on your point of view. I always compile all my
> projects in some form of "release configuration", with more
> optimization and less debug info (except for Borland). Anything that
> doesn't work in that configuration is therefore unusable for me. I
> would be disappointed if boost shipped a library that claimed support
> for one of my compilers, but actually failed to work in a release
> build; I would naturally assume it was my code that was at fault and
> not the boost library.
I'm not disputing the value or necessity of the testing - I am
disputing the timing of adding a new test platform, which is
effectively what you are proposing.
Also, my perspective is very clouded as a Borland user as almost 12
months after the current product was launched there is still no
official Boost support - yes, Borland managed to time their release to
be just a couple of weeks after the last Boost cycle, AGAIN! Until
1.34 ships, there is no 'official' support for any Borland compiler
less than 5 years old, so yes my perspective is very skewed ;?)
> So, whilst I agree that these failures may have only just come to
> light, and that it is going to be extra work to fix them, I think it
> is important that boost works (and therefore is tested) in the
> configuration(s) of the compilers actually used by boost users.
And that is why I think they should be a high priority for 1.35, and am
gearing up to work on the Borland issues as we speak!
-- AlisdairM