Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Rene Rivera" <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46649B3C.4060204@gmail.com...
Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Jun 4, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
* We don't test release versions, even though this is the most used variant by users. We shouldn't be doing this at all IMO. NO testing during release. I believe Rene means the "release" variant, i.e., with optimizations turned on. This also saves a *ton* of disk space. Also, testing with shared libraries rather than dynamic saves a lot of disk space. Yes, I mean building and testing with optimizations on. Most likely we would want to build the profile variant so that we could get both optimizations and debug symbols. But that introduces the large disk space requirements again. My point is that we currently *only* test what is useful to library authors. And we essentially give users the cold shoulder.
From what I understand there is no problems adding these tests into test suite.
Your understanding is incorrect.
No "boost-wide" decision is required.
We need to decide that the optimized variant is a release requirement. Then we need to acquire testing resources for each platform we support. Then we need to manage the testing resources to cover both debug and release for all platforms such that we get timely testing results. And we need to ensure that library authors fix all the places where the rely on testing only in debug mode. We've gone over this before, so I suggest people search the testing and dev list archives.
We may just add encouraging statement to the testing procedures docs.
Encouraging isn't enough. We have to explicitly ask if we want anything approaching a reliable procedure. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo