stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anton Pevtsov" <Ant...@moscow.vdiweb.com>
Subject RE: test for lib.string.cons
Date Tue, 16 May 2006 16:47:57 GMT
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Great! I expect we'll just change the existing macros instead of
adding new ones, right?

Yes, this is temporary construction, it allows us to modify tests one by
one. When all tests will be updated I'll remove the obsolete macro and
rename new one.


Thanks,
Anton Pevtsov


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 20:18
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: test for lib.string.cons


Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>>I committed the user-defined allocator yesterday so that we can get
> 
> started on enhancing the tests to use it. Since I haven't thoroughly
> tested UserAlloc yet let me do one test first to iron out    > any
> kinks.
> 
> I tried to use the UserAlloc to enhance the cons test. It required 
> changes in 21.strings.cpp - I wrote a two new macros:
> 
> #define DEFINE_TEST_DISPATCH_ALLOC(fname)
[...]
> and TEST_DISPATCH_ALLOC to call fname with allocator.
> 
> The test was successfully passed.

Great! I expect we'll just change the existing macros instead of adding
new ones, right?

> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>>The other tests will need to verify that the class uses the allocator
> 
> object to allocate all storage and for any other operations (i.e.,
uses
> and honors max_size(), uses address(), construct(),       > destroy(),
> etc.). This will have to be done conditionally only for UserAlloc 
> (i.e., analogously to how we test that Traits::eq() and 
> Traits::length() are used).
> 
> Ok, I'll verify this.

Cool, thanks!
Martin

Mime
View raw message