Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of msebor@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.231 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender;
        b=Vv5Ee5kAImFi2z6HBVtd5hXxLQTwc4xefuRo3TQCk4Tm1IjeDGOdvnT4WX5w73Uf8Bex8euLiJqPmvd0whv/JcaAKk/RgLK53Prr/ZZ9Y0NvdInHfpRC/Sv3yiVkZY0DjNSlme4M/mX6+OeKo/jzqQxjX7KbOlMh7ReZ0zsSiIM=
Message-ID: <468495B7.2040900@roguewave.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:16:39 -0600
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
Organization: Rogue Wave Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070531 Fedora/1.0.9-1.fc6 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: STDCXX tests fails and reasons [MSVC]
References: <7BDB2168BEAEF14C98F1901FD2DE64389D70B2@epmsa009.minsk.epam.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BDB2168BEAEF14C98F1901FD2DE64389D70B2@epmsa009.minsk.epam.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com>

Farid Zaripov wrote:
>   The list of the fails and reasons (which I've checked at the moment)
> is here:
> http://people.apache.org/~faridz/test_status.html
> 

Thanks, this is very helpful!

>   I have question on test 27.stringbuf.virtuals. There in
> basic_stringbuf<>::xsputn()
> the first parameter passed pointer to the internal basic_stringbuf<>
> buffer
> (basic_stringbuf<>::pbase()). And if size of the internal buffer is not
> enough
> to receive requested number of characters, reallocation occurred and
> then the previous
> buffer (deallocated at this moment) used as source characters.
> 
>   Is this valid operation (I mean to pass the internal basic_stringbuf<>
> buffer in
> basic_stringbuf<>::sputn())? Btw the Dinkumware STL has the similar
> problem.

There's no requirement that makes it invalid but it's not something
we'll see every day :) Let me look into it a bit to better understand
what's going on there.

> 
>   Another problem in that test is difference between
> char_traits<char>::eof() == int(-1)
> and char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() == int (65536).

char_traits<wchar_t>::eof() should equal WEOF. Is WEOF equal to
65536 on Windows? The test probably assumes that EOF is the same
as WEOF which may not be a safe assumption.

> The
> basic_stringbuf<>::pbackfail() test
> (line 637) expected EOF == -1 and issues rw_error() diagnostic on whar_t
> tests.

Is this still 27.stringbuf.virtuals.cpp? I don't see any rw_error()
in there.

Martin