If this is the only reason gmock needs boost, it seems like a better idea would be to push a copy of tuple.h into gmock and submit a patch to make it more self-contained in the first place.
-scott On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) <ajw...@chromium.org> wrote: > One other idea to explore...what about "reimplementing" tr1::tuple using > base::Tuple? It'd be a pretty naughty hack (adding something to the tr1:: > namespace), but for the limited use-case of gmock, it could be good enough? > -Albert > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Marc-Antoine Ruel <mar...@chromium.org> > wrote: >> >> [-chromium-reviews, +chromium-dev] >> (take 2) >> From their website, <<To use Google Mock, you will need the TR1 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. >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
