On 23 December 2011 18:19, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Tue Dec 20 2011, Mateusz Łoskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote:
On 20 December 2011 16:23, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Tue Dec 20 2011, Mateusz Łoskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote:
I'm trying to figure out if there is anything I could do to improve compile/link-time for tests of Boost.Geometry library. Currently, the tests follow fairly canonical approach in Boost:
1) Each .cpp file defines a single test program and all local test routines are executed from test_main()
That's your problem right there.
Yes, I'm aware that's a weak link.
The canonical organization is unfriendly to fast test times and I would not use it for my next library. It's better to put more tests together in the same executable, and more in the same translation unit.
Interesting. Would you use Boost.Test for next libary?
I might. Historically, I have not needed what Boost.Test provides and issues with the stability of Boost.Test, especially close to release times, has made me wary. However, IIUC, it is well-suited to the many-tests-in-one-executable model. So I'd probably take another look at it.
Dave, Thanks for sharing your insights. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net