Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: > > Before inventing something new, why not ask the Boost.Build folks how > they suppress unwanted pop ups during Boost regression tests. They went > through the exact same sequence you are now repeating; first a lot of > popups occurred, then a few, then a few that closed auto

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: > >> troy d. straszheim wrote: >> >> The test that causes this is just a program with a main() routine... It >>> seems like it should use boost.test, and boost.test should be >>> responsible for

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

David Abrahams wrote: troy d. straszheim wrote: The test that causes this is just a program with a main() routine... It seems like it should use boost.test, and boost.test should be responsible for making these dialog-suppressing calls. (Does that sound like it makes sense?) 1. I'm reluctant

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

troy d. straszheim wrote: > The test that causes this is just a program with a main() routine... It > seems like it should use boost.test, and boost.test should be > responsible for making these dialog-suppressing calls. (Does that sound > like it makes sense?) 1. I'm reluctant to recommend that

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I've seen this but haven't had time to dig in and solve it yet. CPU usage drops to zero and the thing just sits there Yes, those are the symptoms I'm seeing

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: I went back and set BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE_HOSTNAME to vista.dc.resophonic.com< http://vista.dc.resophonic.com/>, then tried nmake /I test. It runs for a bit and then pauses for a long time, then runs a bit more, etc. At this rate it will take days to run the full set of tests. Is t

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:25 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >>I didn't have a clue as to what BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE_HOSTNAME should >>be, so just left it blank. That resulted in the "Traash Demo" >>Hostname being set to bgd.myhome.westell.com >>

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: I didn't have a clue as to what BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE_HOSTNAME should be, so just left it blank. That resulted in the "Traash Demo" Hostname being set to bgd.myhome.westell.com , which I doubt is meaningful. meaningful enough What

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Beman Dawes wrote: >> >>> I'm still hung at the step that says " Enable BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE and >>> BOOST_BUILD_TESTING." >>> >>> There

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> I'm still hung at the step that says " Enable BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE and >> BOOST_BUILD_TESTING." >> >> There are no such entries to enable. >> > > > > Does this help? > > http://svn.boost.org/tra

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman, On Tuesday 17 June 2008 05:04:05 Beman Dawes wrote: > I'm still hung at the step that says " Enable BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE and > BOOST_BUILD_TESTING." > > There are no such entries to enable. You might have to show "advanced" configuration options. You should see a checkbox on the GUI for thi

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Justins's suggestion: It seems like it would be easier to have a testing configuration file that specifies the necessary configuration options. For example, we could have "BoostTestingSlave.cmake" was a good one, you can hide details and reduce the number of steps and avoid editing the cach

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

KSpam wrote: I can see how these CMake specifics can be very confusing to someone that is not used to CMake. It seems like it would be easier to have a testing configuration file that specifies the necessary configuration options. For example, we could have "BoostTestingSlave.cmake" with the

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:38 PM, KSpam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 16 June 2008 12:58:23 Beman Dawes wrote: > > * The "Configuration testing" section is totally opaque to someone (me!) > > who has never used edit_cache. Any why is it called "edit_cache"? It > > appears to be configurati

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: I'm still hung at the step that says " Enable BOOST_BUILD_SLAVE and BOOST_BUILD_TESTING." There are no such entries to enable. > Does this help? http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeWindowsRegressionQuickstart it's BUILD_TESTING, not BOOST_BUILD_TESTING, my fault.

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:14 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beman Dawes wrote: > >> Troy, >> >> Here is some initial feedback" >> > > Hey Beman, > > All good feedback. I neglected to mention that the documents assume > that the reader is familiar with building/configuring via

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

On Monday 16 June 2008 12:58:23 Beman Dawes wrote: > * The "Configuration testing" section is totally opaque to someone (me!) > who has never used edit_cache. Any why is it called "edit_cache"? It > appears to be configuration settings that are being edited. > > Specifically, say that running nmake

Re: [Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Beman Dawes wrote: Troy, Here is some initial feedback" Hey Beman, All good feedback. I neglected to mention that the documents assume that the reader is familiar with building/configuring via cmake. They've been updated, but could still use some work... and we now have a wiki page about t

[Boost-cmake] Test feedback

Troy, Here is some initial feedback" * > make a working directory somewhere, check out the source to "src" and make a directory "build". CD into "build" and execute This is less than clear. What source? Check out from where? Do the directories actually have to be named "src" and "build"? If so,