Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stefan.teleman@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=sdam5Mx3tFMh0rhv21fFUlMe1/G5ah45gKcXP8k1ZHDDLa+t2HZlQ5MwUcCtoazuhf
         7ZIkamvnqUnY9xlbwI2z5IhRGR94hiZ1X7K3fAZXDeWO393IqFtrnr6VfMsKhqIbXLwr
         S/i/ajY982F6Uz/e6tt9c2jzomowGIC23Fxuo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E080551.404@pathscale.com>
References: <4DFAE25E.9040703@pathscale.com>
	<DEE44AFE682197449410588EB783A51427A5EB5E5F@BUNGLE.Emea.Arm.com>
	<4DFB7400.9080904@pathscale.com>
	<BANLkTinNQfNXOu8Lu3WhXDKXP4D3puW=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E06B97C.10804@pathscale.com>
	<BANLkTi=-JUUW=35bz9TOkOZECS4NHbACyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E06CF4C.5080709@pathscale.com>
	<BANLkTinb9K8LCGH81g1FmQ_L-ZN+LBmfxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E076B9F.4010801@pathscale.com>
	<BANLkTikOhcc9uJytLcMB2eV8qgGpWQZQnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E080551.404@pathscale.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:23:41 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinxLUGhHc5rOvkvB0Suh1dv8CNi-w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: STDCXX "fork"
From: Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman@gmail.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org, "stdcxx-dev@apache.org" <stdcxx-dev@apache.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?C=2E_Bergstr=C3=B6m?= <cbergstrom@pathscale.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2011/6/27 "C. Bergstr=C3=B6m" <cbergstrom@pathscale.com>:

> Your false statements are annoying and unnecessary.

I deeply regret that I am annoying you.

> Please don't avoid the question as I'm trying to help review your changes=
.
> =C2=A0Either publicly or privately email which patch fixes which Perennia=
l test.
> =C2=A0(If in fact you've ran them at all)

Quite frankly, I really don't need your help in reviewing my patches.
They've already been reviewed.

My current job description does not require me to help you run the
Perennial validation tests, or to provide you with any information
about the Perennial test results. As a matter of fact, I don't even
have to provide you with patches at all. I am doing this as a
courtesy: you stated that you wanted to look at the Solaris patches.

You work for a compiler writer, and you stated you have a Perennial
license. You should, therefore, be able to run the Perennial tests
yourself.

I stand by my previous statement: you have not validated the github
fork of stdcxx against any validation test harness. Had you done so,
several tests would/should have failed. Had you corrected the stdcxx
code causing these failures (which you have not, I have verified that
the violations are still there), several tests from the apache stdcxx
test harness would have failed, and these tests would have required
patches too. I do not see the necessary code changes, and I can tell
all this by looking at the PathScale stdcxx fork code.

--Stefan

--=20
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com