Eric Friedman wrote: > I apologize if this has already been asked, but why aren't the > libs/mpl/test sources included in regresssion testing? I know some > tests are missing and some are perhaps as robust as they might be, > but it seems some testing is better than no testing.
Definitely, and besides, although not systematic, the tests do cover most of the library's functionality. As Beman already replied, the reason they are not included into the main boost regression run is two-fold - first, due to a large number of tests and the current format of the compiler status table it would make the latter even more uninformative, to the point of being useless (for a human reader, at least). Secondly, many tests are compile-time intensive (and some compilers are notoriously slow with templates), which for a typical regression run on 8-10 compilers means about an hour of additional time. Unless regressions are run on a standalone designated machine, it can be too much. That's not to say that the situation is not going to improve, though - here at Meta we have enough computation resources that the last issue can be ignored, and solving the first one is on our to-do list (we are already running regular nightly regressions - http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm.html). Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
