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