[-chromium-reviews, +chromium-dev] (take 2) >From their website, «To use Google Mock, you will need the TR1<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Report_1> tuple C++ library installed.» and not directly boost. Up to now, chromium source tree assumed "defined(_MSC_VER) == No TR1", which is not exactly true. This is particularly not true on VS2008 + SP1 + Feature Pack<http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=D466226B-8DAB-445F-A7B4-448B326C48E7> . Since it's included in VS2008 as an addon and there's only VS2005 that truly lacks it, it *could *be a compelling reason to drop support for VS2005. We'd be at odds with WebKit but 'eh' is all I have to say. :)
It'd be a bit awkward with a potentially eminent move to VS2010 within a year or so. So to summarize my mind; If TR1 is available natively on MSVC, I want its stl tr1 library to be used with conditional include magic. I'm fine to include boost only as a supplicant to continue supporting MSVC8 and MSVC9 without FP. Is that fine? M-A 2009/5/15 John Grabowski <j...@chromium.org> > I did a quick test. The minimal set of files needed to get only boost's > tuple is 390 (down from ~1200 in the zip), and size drops from 9M to 1.3M. > Windows may differ a tad that OSX (e.g. uses platform/win32.hpp instead of > platform/macos.hpp) but it'll be in the same ballpark. > Is an extra 1.3M in the source tree acceptable for the benefit of getting > gmock? I think yes. maruel brettw? > > jrg > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) <ajw...@chromium.org > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Steven Knight <s...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Guys, it would be a major win to get gmock landed. I'd like to keep >>>> trying here, even if not trivially small. >>>> Re: boost size. If necessary we could probably checkin only the few >>>> files actually needed (e.g. tuple.hpp, boost/config.hpp, >>>> boost/static_assert.hpp, and perhaps 10 more). maruel, is that >>>> something you'd be happier with? >>>> >>> >>> That seems much more acceptable to me. Especially if it doing it also >>> sidesteps the svn:external issue. >>> >> >> Unfortunately, it does not sidestep svn:external. What about just adding >> --ignore-externals to all our svn commands in gclient? I don't think anyone >> else uses externals, and give people's reactions, I don't think they should >> be. >> >> As for reducing boost to something sane, this is supposedly the reduced >> subset... >> >> -Albert >> >> >>> >>> (Seriously, svn:external really only works for such a narrow use case, >>> and introduces so many other problems down the road when things need to >>> change (branching+merging, local mods, etc.) that I'd really try to wave off >>> upstream gmock from using it.) >>> >>> --SK >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 7:40 AM, <nsylv...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> LGTM with my comment and sgk's comments. >>>>> >>>>> As for maruel's comment : It made me sad too. gmock seems to be a lot >>>>> of >>>>> troubles (svn:external, then ugly dependencies). Have we at least >>>>> considered using something else? Or not using it at all? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/115398/diff/1/2 >>>>> File third_party/boost/README.chromium (right): >>>>> >>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/115398/diff/1/2#newcode3 >>>>> Line 3: >>>>> http://googlemock.googlecode.com/files/boost_tr1_tuple_1_36_0.zip >>>>> Can you add a line that says what the license is. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/115398 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
