From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-05 08:45:14
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:59 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> On Jul 3, 2005, at 5:31 AM, Paul Baxter wrote:
>>> In terms of compiler status, if there really is an issue between
>>> debug
>>> and
>>> release (usually bad compiler optimisations) shouldn't we:
>>> a) clearly note in the test report we're in debug or release build
>>> (can also
>>> be discovered by looking at the build directory name)
>>>
>>> b) Actually test a compiler using a reasonable set of optimisations
>>> since
>>> we're trying to report if a compiler can use Boost in actual builds,
>>> not in
>>> a no optimisation alternative.
>>
>> I hadn't realized you were running a release built. It is very
>> important to do (for many reasons), but I think we should add
>> "-release" to the end of the toolset name to indicate what we're
>> doing.
>> Then we can more immediately see what problems are caused by compiler
>> optimizations.
>
> It's also important to check through all of our tests to make sure
> they're not using "assert" and/or to force NDEBUG to be undefined.
> Otherwise many of our tests could be passing because they have no code
> to execute.
Well, we *should* be using BOOST_CHECK, because we want assert()s in
library code to disappear for release builds to be sure we haven't put
an important side effect in them.
Doug