<snip>
Of course, this change would introduce two different kind of testers: compile farms and runners. Testing boost without actually compiling it would attact more people and hopefully it would cover less popular OSes. </snip>
Hey I've got this great program I've just compiled. Please download it and run it using only my non-existent reputation that it contains no malicious code. On 6/7/07, Alexander Nasonov <alnsn@yandex.ru> wrote:
07.06.07, 16:24, Janek Kozicki <janek_listy@wp.pl>:
Hi, Although the roots of my idea were different it turns out to be very similar to well known SETI@Home project. Therefore I call it Boost@Home:)
If your goal is to test many OSes on the most popular desktop OS, then I see at least one other approach: cross-compilation. It doesn't cover all compilers and tricky for "run" test targets but it has some advanges as well:
- Quick build for embedded devices. - Better compile-time and link time dependency tracking. - Environment separation. In order to run tests, they have to be copied to target platform. Any missing dependency will show up.
Of course, this change would introduce two different kind of testers: compile farms and runners. Testing boost without actually compiling it would attact more people and hopefully it would cover less popular OSes.
If NetBSD can be compiled on cygwin, why boost can't?! ;-)
-- Alexander Nasonov _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Bobby R. Ward ------------------------------ bobbyrward@gmail.com http://www.bobbyrward.com http://combustion.sourceforge.net