ut VS sml

I don't think stepping through static_assert is a thing? Curious if it is, though. Since constexpr is either run-time or compile-time and static_assert is not a poor man's debugging facility could be to -Dstatic_assert(...) assert(__VA_ARGS__) and gdb the code. Alternatively, a more refined solution would be to use an UT framework (for example https://github.com/boost-ext/ut) which helps with that. IMHO, TDD can also limit the requirement of stepping into the code and with gurantees that the code is memory safe and UB safe there is less need for sanitizers and valgrind etc. depending on the coverage.

It was not easy, I had to modify Boost UT to get it to run my tests. It doesn't support type-parametrized tests when the type parameter is non-copiable, which was the case for me. This is a symptom of a larger issue, which is that it relies on std::apply and std::tuple to generate the type-parametrized tests, which in turns requires instantiating the tuple and the contained objects (even though these instances aren't actually used; eh). That's a no go for me, since I need to carefully monitor when instance are created, and this was throwing off my test code. I had to effectively disable these checks to get it to run without failures. Then there was a similar issue with expect(), which doesn't work if part of the expression is non-copiable. I reported these issues to them.

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut (for better user interface when defining tests without macros)

https://github.com/boost-ext/ut from Kris Jusiak is worth checking

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.

UT

In Boost.UT there is a number of different styles to add a parametrized test case. All of them are pretty cryptic bue to heavy isage of oeverloaded operators of custom "non-public" classes. Except for the for-loop method, in all other methods the list of parameter values goes after the test procedure definition. I find this inconvenient, as I want to see list of parameter value next to the test name. This is what I used to from the times I was coding a lot of unit tests in C#.

Anyway the need is not complicated, I need both entry and exit functions from every state, optionally allowing these functions to be coroutines (that's special sauce but for later), and an explicit state transition table which also have a way to say that a state can be accessed at any point. Also allow states to be state machines, optional FSM hierarchies. If you ignore the coroutine stuff it's pretty standard features these days, except that - Boost.MSM is quite archaic now (it was so novel when it was first released...) although it allows most of the features I talked about, I just think it will complicate my code unneecessarilly; - Boost-Ext.SML (not Boost) is almost perfect except it doesnt have entry/exit functions on states for some reason. Also last time we (as in in livestream) tried it in prototypes it didnt compile on msvc XD - Boost-Ext.SML2 is even better but still doesnt have entry/exit functions although it's in the plans.

Hello all. Being a huge fan of state machine and coroutines, I have been browsing around for examples of what other people do combine these two. I have been using boost-ext/sml for quite many projects and are quite happy about that. But when transitioning to code that relies on coroutines, I would like to write entry/exit/actions/guard methods that uses coroutines and where I can co_await on awaitables from Asio and more recently "Boost Async".

boost-ext/sml: quite modern way of doing state machines using a DSL

I recently was troubleshooting a crash that backtraced through the boost::sml library [0]. The crash didn't actually have anything to do with the library, but it was used as the core event loop.

The backtrace -- as in, just the output from running `bt` in GDB -- was over a thousand wrapped lines long. There were ~5 stack frames that took up 200 lines of console each to print just the function name. That product's debug builds recently hit the 2GB line, which is enough that old versions of binutils complain.

I don't know what the solution is. There's some really neat stuff you can do with template metaprogramming, and in stripped release builds it compiles down extremely tiny. Plus the code is very clean to read. But it does feel like there isn't any kind of central vision for the C++ debugging experience, and bad interactions between highly-complex modern C++ typing, the compiler, and the debugger are probably only going to get worse unless somebody (the ISO committee? Vendors?) thinks really hard about debugging support.

[0]: https://github.com/boost-ext/sml

I'm a big fan of MSM but what you're experiencing is pretty normal for template-heavy libraries built on C++03 machinery (emulation of variadic templates is the usual culprit). It's probably not the answer you're hoping for, but the real solution is to switch to a library with more modern foundations. (I've been happily using [Boost::ext].SML for a few years but I'm reluctant to strongly recommend anything in particular since I haven't re-explored the problem space since I found it.)

The Boost one that you mention, seems to be one that it's kinda old. A "successor" of sorts is Boost SML. I've not used it yet, but certainly the first impressions are very good.

Or Boost.Sml

At our company, we rely a lot on https://github.com/boost-ext/sml

I'm a big fan of boost::sml for representing state machines.

https://github.com/boost-ext/sml (State Machine DSL and backend for perfomance)