incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: test for 21.string.copy
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:38:04 GMT
Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>>Also, I noticed some strange long --trace output in a few cases that
> 
> doesn't look right to me (see below). Could you look into it to see
> what's going on? (Is it because we're not using the right    >
> formatting directive?)
> 
> Yes, the %{#*s} directive is used in the test for both char and wchar_t
> arrays. But the %{#*ls} should be used for wchar_t.
> I think the rw_assert call should be modified using the rw_narrow()
> functions to avoid additional "switches" in the formatting line. Will
> something like this:
> 
> ...
>     bool success = 
>         !TestString::traits_type::compare (exp_res, s_res, exp_res_len);
> 
>     static char tmp1[long_string_len];
>     static char tmp2[long_string_len];
> 
>     rw_assert (success, 0, cs.line,
>                CALLFMAT " expected %{#*s}, got %{#*s}", CALLARGS,
>                int (exp_res_len), rw_narrow (tmp1, exp_res,
> exp_res_len),
>                int (res), rw_narrow (tmp2, s_res, res));
> ...
> 
> be Ok?

Thta's what I was thnking, yes. But I plan to finish the generic
formatting directive for strings today so maybe it's not worth
the effort to make this change only to change the code again.

Martin

Mime
View raw message