stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Travis Vitek <>
Subject Re: low hanging fruit while cleaning up test failures
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:50:41 GMT

Martin Sebor wrote:
> Travis Vitek wrote:
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I added a new function, rw_fnmatch(), to the test driver. It behaves
>>> just
>>> like the POSIX fnmatch() (the FNM_XXX constants aren't implemented
>>> yet). While the main purpose behind the new function is to support
>>> STDCXX-683 it should make it easier to also implement a scheme like
>>> the one outlined below.
>>> Travis, feel free to experiment/prototype a solution :)
>>> Martin
>> What expression should be used to get an appropriate set of locales for a
>> given platform? I can't really expect a filter for all UTF-8 locales to
>> work
>> on all platforms as some don't have those encodings available at all. If
>> I
>> filter by language, then I may be limiting the testing to some always
>> correct subset. Is that acceptable for the MT tests?
> I think the MT ctype tests just need to exercise a representative
> sample of multi-byte encodings (i.e., MB_CUR_MAX between 1 and
> MB_LEN_MAX). There already is some code in the test suite to find
> locales that use these encodings, although it could be made more
> efficient. I don't know how useful rw_fnmatch() will turn out to
> be in finding these codesets since their names don't matter.
> Martin
>> Travis

Actually, I think I meant to say single threaded tests. Those are the ones
that currently test every locale. The multi-threadede tests already test a
subset of locales, though the method for selecting those locales may vary
between tests.

I don't think it is right to test a fixed set of locales based on language,
country, or encoding. If you agree, then we probably agree that the proposed
enhancement doesn't actually do anything useful [and I've wasted a bunch of
time]. If this is the case, then we need to propose another solution for
selecting locales.

If I am wrong, and it is useful for testing [and more specifically how it
would be useful for fixing STDCXX-608], then I'd like to hear how.

View this message in context:
Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at

View raw message