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: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:16:39 GMT
Farid Zaripov wrote:
>   The list of the fails and reasons (which I've checked at the moment)
> is here:
> http://people.apache.org/~faridz/test_status.html
> 

Thanks, this is very helpful!

>   I have question on test 27.stringbuf.virtuals. There in
> basic_stringbuf<>::xsputn()
> the first parameter passed pointer to the internal basic_stringbuf<>
> buffer
> (basic_stringbuf<>::pbase()). And if size of the internal buffer is not
> enough
> to receive requested number of characters, reallocation occurred and
> then the previous
> buffer (deallocated at this moment) used as source characters.
> 
>   Is this valid operation (I mean to pass the internal basic_stringbuf<>
> buffer in
> basic_stringbuf<>::sputn())? Btw the Dinkumware STL has the similar
> problem.

There's no requirement that makes it invalid but it's not something
we'll see every day :) Let me look into it a bit to better understand
what's going on there.

> 
>   Another problem in that test is difference between
> char_traits<char>::eof() == int(-1)
> and char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() == int (65536).

char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() should equal WEOF. Is WEOF equal to
65536 on Windows? The test probably assumes that EOF is the same
as WEOF which may not be a safe assumption.

> The
> basic_stringbuf<>::pbackfail() test
> (line 637) expected EOF == -1 and issues rw_error() diagnostic on whar_t
> tests.

Is this still 27.stringbuf.virtuals.cpp? I don't see any rw_error()
in there.

Martin

Mime
View raw message