Re: [Cppunit-devel] config.h changes committed

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

Quoting "Steve M. Robbins" <ste...@vi...>:

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 09:03:04AM +0200, Bastiaan Bakker wrote:
> I am suggesting to eliminate one symbol in favour of the other.
> If I have to choose, I would keep HAVE_RTTI because it has some
> precedence: it comes from the autoconf macro archive.  But I can
> see reasons for preferring to keep USE_TYPEINFO.
  OK. I did know what's was behind the RTTI thingy (kinda strange, I did not 
though that you could have the type_info without dynamic_cast).
  Well, I propose to keep USE_TYPEINFO.

  Our USE_TYPEINFO could be defined as: you have typeinfo, and the name() 
methode return a human readable name (that last one can't be tested by a 
machine unfortunately). So it's a stronger requirement than HAVE_RTTI.


> >    When you want maximum portability, you want to disable both.
> 
> I think it is more correct to say, "for maximum portability, you want
> the library to work in both the presence and the absence of HAVE_RTTI".
  The library works on both, but some features won't be available (name 
extraction from type. We had rather lengthy discussion about this with Baastian 
a while back). The good things is that is you are using the macro, you don't 
have to care.
  So if I have a crossplatform project, I can remove USE_TYPEINFO support to 
make sure than only portable features are used.

> The symbol HAVE_RTTI is checked for and set automatically at
> installation time.  Assuming it replaces USE_TYPEINFO, HAVE_RTTI
> should not be an option for the library user.  That is, it should not
> appear in <cppunit/Portability.h>.  Among other reasons, you can run
> into trouble if the installer builds with HAVE_RTTI = 1 (enabling RTTI
> in the library .cpp files), and the user includes <cppunit/foo> with
> HAVE_RTTI = 0 (not using RTTI in some inlined functions).  Or
> vice-versa.
  I agree

---
Baptiste Lepilleur <gai...@fr...>
http://gaiacrtn.free.fr/index.html
Language: English, French