stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: rw_match() bug
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:51:28 GMT
Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> Ok, I see. There are no problems to switch the strings tests to using
> the (1) method. I think it will require changes in one line.

Really? That's it? I thought it would take a lot more changes
than that. All the test cases hardwire the size of each string
and, AFAICS, that's what gets used as the last argument to
rw_match(). What would we pass in instead? Passing in the
size/length of the second string wouldn't be safe (since it
could be longer than the first string due to a bug). I think
the only safe thing to do would be to pass the length of
expanded first string but that would either have to be
hardcoded in each test case requiring changes to all the
TEST macros, or computed. Or am I missing something?

Martin

> So I'll do it when the new version of the char.cpp will be ready.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anton Pevtsov
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 04:40
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: rw_match() bug
> 
> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>Hmm. There are two possible interpretations of the third argument to 
>>rw_match():
>>
>>1. it gives the maximum number of characters to compare (i.e.,
>>   after all directives have been expanded)
>>
>>2. it denotes the number of characters in the first argument
>>   (i.e., before the expansion of any directives).
>>
>>It looks like currently we do (2). I missed this and made changes to 
>>implement (1). Needless to say, even though my changes are "good", 
>>they cause many failures in the test suite. I need to go back and 
>>implement (1). It shouldn't be too hard but it means that I won't be 
>>able to commit my changes tonight (what I have is attached so you can 
>>see where I am).
> 
> 
> OTOH, (1) seems to make more sense to me. What do you think? If you
> agree, how difficult do you think it would be to switch the string tests
> to using it instead of (2)?
> 
> Martin


Mime
View raw message