David Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Jun 06 2008, "troy d. straszheim"
> wrote:
>> I'd sorta prefer to stay ignorant, though if nobody else digs in I may
>> end up taking you up on this, or imposing on some of my local windows-savvy
>> colleagues.
>
> For what it's worth, it's been my experience that
on Fri Jun 06 2008, "troy d. straszheim"
wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>
>>> inside macro boost_test_compile(). This needs to be checked that the
>>> compile command generated actually makes sense on windows.
>>
>> Nit: it's not a question of Windows-or-not-Windows, but that we need to
>>
David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> inside macro boost_test_compile(). This needs to be checked that the
>> compile command generated actually makes sense on windows.
>
> Nit: it's not a question of Windows-or-not-Windows, but that we need to
> check that it makes sense on all compilers. I run the cygwi
Doug Gregor wrote:
>
> Shouldn't that also have a DEPENDS ${BOOST_TEST_SOURCES} argument?
>
Good catch, thanks, and I'm finding some other loose ends, nothing major.
My eyes are starting to cross, a fresh pair *will* be appreciated when they're
available.
>> The stdout/stderr/returnstatus, etc
on Mon Jun 02 2008, "troy d. straszheim"
wrote:
> I've just make a big commit to the CMake/releases branch,
> think we've made a very solid step here. Turns out no
> patches to cmake were required.
Awesome.
> --- Tests ---
>
> CTest is gone, the tests have been converted to real make targets
Hi Troy,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:04 PM, troy d. straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just make a big commit to the CMake/releases branch,
> think we've made a very solid step here. Turns out no
> patches to cmake were required.
Cool. I'll try to review these changes in the next couple o
