From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-22 14:22:12
Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> Hm, in my experience it's the other way around: end-users find it too tedious
> to remember the sequence of options to enable the right set of warnings for
> each compiler, etc. On the other hand, how often do you write a test that
> needs to be built with exceptions disables...
Maybe not very often, but each time a user reports "your library doesn't
compile/work with exceptions disabled."
That's perhaps not as frequent as "your library doesn't compile with -Werror"
but it does happen.
> ... and how hard is it to specify the
> actual options for essentially two classes of C++ compilers: MSVC and
> everything else?
boost_test already solves this, as it's smart enough to translate some
compile options to msvc-ese
but that's not quite the same as having built-in support. b2, for instance,
allows me to do this
run my_test.cpp : : : <target-os>darwin,<undefined-sanitizer>norecover:<build>no ;
which isn't as convenient with a flag soup.
Expressing something like this, for example
with CMake is much more verbose and not as general.