Should unittests run as logical part of compilation?

[Ary Borenszweig]

On 1/25/14, 7:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> There's this simple realization that unittests could (should?) be
> considered an intrinsic part of the build process. In order for an
> executable to be worth running, it should pass the regular semantic
> checks and also the unittests, which in a sense are extended semantic
> checks that fall outside the traditional charter of the compiler.

I can imagine someone who discovered a bug late at night, has a fix and 
needs to upload the new executable as soon as possible: he quickly 
comments all failing unit tests to make them pass. The next morning he 
uncomments them and fixes them with tranquility.