Hi, 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() // test_feature_x.cpp void test1() {} // make use of BOOST_CHECK_* macros void test2() {} int test_main(int, char* []) { test1(); test2(); return 0; } 2) Jamfile per testing project builds and runs each program separately # features/Jamfile.v2 test-suite test-features : [ run test_feature_x.cpp ] [ run test_feature_y.cpp ] ; 3) Root mylib/test/Jamfile.v2 defines testing projects to build and run import testing ; project boost-mylib-test : ; build-project features ; build-project algorithms ; build-project abc ; In total, there are nearly 170 test programs in Boost.Geometry. Obviously, running the whole set of tests (b2 command issued in libs\geometry\test) is time consuming process. I'm wondering if there is any way to reorganise the tests to cut down the build (linking) time. My first idea is to decrease number of run entries (e.g. [ run test_feature_y.cpp ] ) in Jamfiles, by building related tests as single test suite program. Conceptually: [ run test_feature_x.cpp test_feature_y.cpp ] Currently, there is no use of Boost.Test features for tests organisation like BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE BOOST_TEST_SUITE etc. I wonder if use of any of the above would help in restructuring tests and decreasing number of programs to build. Another aspect of Boost.Geometry tests I'd like to improve is to improve tests report output. Currently, it is reported as *Passed* or *Failed*. I presume that using Boost.Test to group tests in suits with test cases would improve test report providing details about location of failure (which suite, which case, or even better). I'm looking for any piece of advice on the issues discussed above: - How to cut down build time of tests? - How to improve test output report (and keep it suitable for Boost regression testing framework)? - Is it advised to switch to use Boost.Test features to manage suites and test cases? (I tried to figure it out browsing tests of other libs, but it doesn't indicate any preferred practice). I'd be thankful for any insights. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net