Robert Ramey wrote:
Paul A. Bristow wrote:
And I'm starting a new thread for Compiler Warnings Tests
The Microsoft docs examples might be a good start?
// C4244_level4.cpp // compile with: /W4 == actually warnings = all
(warnings = errors will allow normal fail testing if it isn;t possible to check for warnings?)
// AND MS extensions off?
int aa; unsigned short bb;
int main() { int b = 0, c = 0; short a = b + c; // C4244
bb += c; // C4244 bb = bb + c; // C4244 bb += static_cast<unsigned short>(aa); // C4244 bb = bb + static_cast<unsigned short>(aa); // OK }
So are you proposing a collection of these, with versions that should compile and others that should not, for example:
int main() { int b = 0, c = 0; short a = b + c; // C4244 }
and another with
int main() { int b = 0, c = 0; short a = static_cast<short>(b + c); // OK - NO C4244 }
all run by a jamfile.v2.
Or am I still misunderstanding you?
You've got it.
The only difference would be that the warning shouldn't be associated with a particular compiler.
Look at boost/libs/config tests for inspiriation. Tests would be something like:
boost/libs/warnings/ test_data_truncation // this would correspond to C4244 for ms and ? for other ones // this test would be "compile-pass" // and it would contain a number of tests cases
test_unused_argument test_argument_name_shadowing test_virtual_dtor_missing test_cant_create_default_construtor test_cant_create_default_assignment ...
On the boost testing matrix, the first row describes the environment. To make this useful, this test should be run with the first row - environment description including the warning level.
Note that I use my library_test.sh to run tests for one specific library. This creates an html test matrix on your local machine which shows all the warning emitted. The beauty of this system is that it's very easy to run the tests and create the test matrix on your local machine for just one library.
Robert Ramey
Hi, I second the point of view that the test case shouldn't be associated with a particular compiler. But I have some comments on this. Here is how I see the compiler warning tests: We need to have a test that probes the warning is present for some compilers. The simple way is to build with warnigs_as_errors=on and check that the compilation fails. We need of course check that the workaround or a better coding style solves the issue. This needs to be done also with warnigs_as_errors=on and check that the compilation succeeds. And last, in some cases, we need to check that with warnigs_as_errors=off both are equivalent. This needs to be done with warnigs_as_errors=off and check the test run succeed. int main() { int b = 30000, c = 30000; #if defined(BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_FAIL) short a = b + c; // C4244 #elif undefined(BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_SUCCEED) short a = static_cast<unsigned short>(b + c); #else short a1 = b + c; // C4244 short a2 = static_cast<unsigned short>(b + c); assert(a1==a2) #endif } [Note: The following should not correspond to the bjam syntax] [ compile_fails test_data_truncation.cpp : : warnigs_as_errors=on define=BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_FAIL : test_data_truncation_warning_as_errors_must_fail ] [ compile test_data_truncation.cpp : : warnigs_as_errors=on define=BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_SUCCEED : test_data_truncation_warning_as_errors_must_succeed ] [ run test_data_truncation.cpp : : warnigs_as_errors=off ] The question no is how to use this test on compiler that don't warm in this case. For these compiler [ compile_fails test_data_truncation.cpp : : warnigs_as_errors=on define=BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_FAIL : test_data_truncation_warning_as_errors_must_fail ] will fail as the compilation succeeds. An here is where we can not be independent of the compiler. We need to determine on the code if the compiler must warms or not: int main() { int b = 30000, c = 30000; #if defined(BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_FAIL) short a = b + c; // C4244 #if "compiler don't warms# #warning "There is no issue with this compiler. warning only to make the test succeed" #endif #elif !defined(BOOST_WARNING_AS_ERROR_MUST_SUCCEED) short a = static_cast<unsigned short>(b + c); #else short a1 = b + c; // C4244 short a2 = static_cast<unsigned short>(b + c); assert(a1==a2) #endif } Note that we need a specific file by test as we need to check the warning disappears on the different situations. I'll continue to look for a better approach. Please let me know what do you think. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Compiler-Warnings-Tests-tp26545937p26554919.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.