Re: [lmi] upgrade to xmlwrapp-0.6.0

[Vaclav Slavik]

On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 20:47 +0000, Greg Chicares wrote:
> Or, if we did that in lmi, then wouldn't we be perpetuating the issues
> you describe below?

Yes. It would be a bit better in that the code would be localized in one
place.

> I noticed that, but couldn't measure any improvement with
>   CPPFLAGS='-DHAVE_BOOST_POOL_SINGLETON_POOL_HPP'
> in the 'input_test' unit test's timings. Otherwise, I would have
> added it. But that would still take extra work.

That's strange, I measure ~40% improvement (I don't remember if it was
in input_test or only iterators-manipulating subset of it, though) with
MinGW's gcc-3.4. Did you use 3.4 or 4.3 in your tests? The improvement
in performance with gcc-4.x is so small it's only observable under
valgrind, but I did see real difference with 3.4 back when I was working
on this...

> OTOH, with today's lmi HEAD I can do this, trivially:
>   make build_type=safestdlib unit_tests unit_test_targets=input_test.exe
>   make build_type=mpatrol    unit_tests unit_test_targets=input_test.exe
> The first uses '-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG' etc., and the second uses a malloc
> debugger. Those facilities are immensely valuable to me because they
> may save days of effort fixing some urgent defect, perhaps before
> it's noticed, or even before it's ever committed. Building with the
> Comeau compiler is another inexpensive way of finding defects that
> otherwise might cost a lot to fix. Such advantages are priceless:
> I'm loath to surrender them for the sake of any alternative build
> system, no matter what its other advantages may be.

Points taken, I failed to consider these issues.

> However, what do you think of this idea:
>   
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_38_0/libs/test/doc/html/utf/compilation/direct-include.html

Why not, it looks easier to maintain

> Or such a file could be provided as part of the library, whose
> configure script and makefile could handle all those issues. Then
> again, you might not want that in the library.

Indeed, I'd rather not include that in xmlwrapp itself, unless there are
more uses for it than building LMI.

Vaclav