I just did a sweep through all our code and found and fixed lots of issues related to the use of BOOST_TEST macro, all of which boiled down to the fact that it is possible to use it and never call boost::report_errors(). In several places it had been used as a drop-in replacement for assert(), which it isn't because failure to call report_errors will allow test failures to pass silently. It was also used in a couple places in lieu of BOOST_CHECK, i.e. the author obviously was trying to use Boost.Test but got the wrong macro name. I suggest we do something to make it harder to make that mistake. The only approach I can think of is to create an object at namespace scope whose destructor checks to see if we're exiting with a nonzero error count and without having called report_errors. Or maybe it should just do something like: namespace boost { namespace detail { template <bool = false> struct lightweight_error_reporter { ~lightweight_error_reporter() { if (boost::report_errors()) { abort(); } } static lightweight_error_reporter instance; }; }} Whether abort() or exit(1) or throw xxx is more appropriate there I don't know (haven't done the research). Thoughts? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com