Gennadiy Rozental wrote: Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote in message news:ej197n$iu1$1@sea.gmane.org...
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
It think the question is still reasonable. Can you have *static* library called unit_test_framework_main that would contain the stock definition of the 'main' function?
I am not sure I understand: static version of the UTF does have function main() implementation included.
Yes, but I mean that it's possible to have:
- UTF, that is build either as static lib or DLL and does *not* have any main function. - Small static library that contains stock definition of main.
No. This is not going to be acceptable IMO.
Why? Is there some problem I've overlooked?
So, when using UTF DLL, user must "just" link to an extra library, which might be simpler than defining macroses.
Why? How is it easier?
Adding one library to link link is easier that modifying sources for a every test program.
And importantly, Boost.Build V2 can make this transparent for all Boost.Test users inside Boost.
Not everybody are using Boost.Build.
I was talking about Boost.Test users inside Boost; of them all use Boost.Build.
IMO the issue is not that significant. In a long term Boost.Test users should switch to auto generated test tree and this case is easily supported in both builds. Conversion in 95% of the cases is straightforward and simple to do.
Sure, but I if nobody does nothing, then in a year from now most tests in Boost will still be linking to Boost.Test statically. - Volodya