stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Farid Zaripov" <Far...@kyiv.vdiweb.com>
Subject RE: testsuite process helpers
Date Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:26:49 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:10 PM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: testsuite process helpers [PATCH]
> 
> Yes, I suppose you're right. Unless we do some magic with
> rw_error() and other diagnostic functions:
> 
>      rw_error(0, 0, 0);   // disables counting errors
>      rw_error(0, 1, 0);   // disables issuing
>      rw_error(1, 0, 0);   // enables counting
>      rw_error(1, 1, 0);   // enables counting and issuing
> 
> Each call returns the previous state of the diagnostic setting.
> Or something like that.
> 
> > 
> >   I propose add two functions enable_diag() / 
> disable_diag(), or just
> > enable_diag(bool enable)
> > to the driver (and use any unused bit in _rw_diag_mask). We 
> can publish
> > the _rw_diag_mask
> > along with enum diag_t later when it's will be required.
> 
> That would be another option. Which one of the two approaches
> do you like better?

  I like the variant with rw_enable_diag(bool) because it's requires
the minimal changes to the driver and gives exactly what is needed.
I not see the situation when we need temporary disable some
diag type (or set of diag types) yet.

  The variant with rw_error(0, 0, 0) and other diagnostic functions is
good and flexible, but it's not clear as for me.

Farid.

Mime
View raw message